Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ClevSec EU compliance tools

by one.clevsec
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Cybersecurity maturity assessment (NIST CSF 2.0)

maturity_assessment
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use to measure an organisation's cybersecurity maturity or to benchmark it against NIST CSF 2.0. Call without answers to get 39 capabilities in the six CSF functions and the 1-5 levels. Call with a level per capability to get the average per function and an overall maturity level.

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": "maturity_assessment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersNoQuestion id to maturity level 1-5, e.g. {"gv1": 2, "id1": 3}. Unanswered questions count as level 1.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond this by disclosing the two operational modes and what each returns, which the annotations cannot convey.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the two call modes. Every sentence carries load and the scoping information is front-loaded, with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema and a single optional object parameter, the description compensates by describing both return shapes (capability listing vs. per-function and overall averages). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description exceeds that by explaining the parameter's role across both modes ('a level per capability') and clarifying that omitting it is valid, adding usage meaning beyond the schema's field-level text.

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 (measure/benchmark) and resource (cybersecurity maturity against NIST CSF 2.0), plus the concrete output (39 capabilities in six CSF functions). It is clear and specific, but it never names or distinguishes itself from the close sibling maturity_improvement_plan, which an agent may confuse with it.

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 clear conditional usage: 'Call without answers to get...' and 'Call with a level per capability to get...', which effectively tells the agent both invocation modes and when each applies. It stops short of naming alternatives or advising to route to maturity_improvement_plan after measuring, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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 toolsInspect
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