Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Security Controls MCP Server

Security Controls MCP Server

by Ansvar-Systems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_control_history

Retrieve the complete version history of a security control across SCF releases, showing when it was added, modified, or removed.

Instructions

Returns the full version timeline for a specific SCF control. Shows when the control was added, modified, or removed across SCF releases. Premium feature — requires Ansvar Intelligence Portal.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "control_id": "<control_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_control_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
control_idYesSCF control ID (e.g., "GOV-01", "IAC-05")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses it returns timeline (read-only) and premium requirement. Does not mention potential data volume, pagination, or any other behavioral traits beyond basic functionality.

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?

Two succinct sentences covering purpose and prerequisite. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action.

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?

For a simple 1-parameter query tool without output schema, description adequately explains what it does and a key prerequisite. Minor gap: lacks mention of return format, but acceptable given simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, with control_id well-described via pattern and description. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'SCF control ID' already in schema). Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states it returns the full version timeline for a specific SCF control, with specific actions (added, modified, removed) across releases. This differentiates it from siblings like get_control or diff_control.

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?

Implied usage for retrieving version history, and mentions premium feature requirement. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get_framework_changes or diff_control.

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