latvian-cybersecurity-mcp

lv_cyber_list_frameworks

List cybersecurity frameworks and standards for Latvia, including CERT.LV guidelines and NIS2 implementation materials.

Instructions

List all cybersecurity frameworks and standard series covered in this MCP, including CERT.LV guidelines and NIS2 implementation materials for Latvia.

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": "lv_cyber_list_frameworks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior directly. The verb 'List' conveys a read-only operation, and the phrase 'covered in this MCP' indicates a fixed, enumerable set. It does not detail return format or side effects, but for a simple catalog tool, the behavior is fully transparent.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and object. Every phrase earns its place: 'List' states the action, 'all cybersecurity frameworks and standard series' states the resource, and the examples provide scope without fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fully complete. It states exactly what is returned ('all...covered in this MCP') and even gives examples of content categories, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by defining what the list contains (frameworks, standard series, specific Latvian materials), enriching the meaning of the tool's output even though no parameters exist to clarify.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('cybersecurity frameworks and standard series'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on enumeration rather than search or get operations. It further clarifies scope with concrete examples (CERT.LV guidelines, NIS2 implementation materials), making the purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage—when an agent needs an overview of all covered frameworks—but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like lv_cyber_search_guidance or lv_cyber_get_guidance. No exclusions or alternative-use cases are stated, so the guidance is present only implicitly.

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

Deploy Server