Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Estonian Cybersecurity MCP

Estonian Cybersecurity MCP

by Ansvar-Systems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

ee_cyber_about

Return server metadata for the Estonian Cybersecurity MCP, including version, data source, coverage, and available tools. Use it to verify server details and capabilities.

Instructions

Return metadata about this MCP server: version, data source, coverage, and tool list.

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": "ee_cyber_about"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It fully describes the read-only nature ('Return metadata') and the exact fields returned. No mutation, side effects, or hidden requirements are relevant for this simple tool.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a concise enumeration of returned fields. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a no-parameter server-info tool with no output schema, the description is entirely sufficient: it names the core returned elements and distinguishes the tool from content-focused siblings. Nothing necessary 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema needs no elaboration; baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description does not introduce any parameter-related ambiguity.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description uses specific verb 'Return' with explicit object 'metadata about this MCP server' and enumerates concrete content: version, data source, coverage, tool list. Clearly distinct from sibling tools that search/retrieve guidance and advisories.

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?

The description makes clear this is for server-level metadata, not domain content, so an agent can infer when to select it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools