ClevSec EU compliance tools

ISO 27001 readiness gap assessment

iso27001_gap_assessment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use to check how close an organisation is to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certification, or to list the Annex A controls in practice. Call without answers to get 41 control checks in four themes (organizational, people, physical, technological) with their Annex A references. Call with a status per control (implemented, partial, planned, not_impl) to get a score per theme, a readiness level and the gaps.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "iso27001_gap_assessment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`answers`	No	Control question id to status, e.g. {"o1": "implemented", "t3": "planned"}. Unanswered controls count as gaps.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape for each mode (41 checks in four themes with Annex A references; or a per-theme score, readiness level and gaps), which matters since no output schema exists. It still omits auth/permission needs and rate limits, so it is good but not complete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then the no-answers mode, then the with-answers mode. Each sentence carries useful information, though the parallel mode sentences could be marginally tightened. Very little waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should carry return-value disclosure, and it does — specifying the control-check output and the scoring output for both invocation modes. For a single optional nested parameter that the schema fully documents, this is nearly complete, missing only alternative-tool guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'answers' parameter with its enum and the 'unanswered controls count as gaps' rule are already documented in the schema. The description largely restates the enum values and gap behavior, adding only marginal meaning beyond the structured field, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('check how close an organisation is to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certification') and even names a secondary mode (listing Annex A controls), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It stops short of naming or routing away from the closest sibling, iso27001_remediation_plan, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit conditional usage for the two modes: 'Call without answers' for the control checklist vs 'Call with a status per control' for scoring. This is clear context, but there are no exclusions and no pointer to the remediation-plan alternative, so it falls short of the 5-level routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ClevSec EU compliance tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?