Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Security Controls MCP Server

Security Controls MCP Server

by Ansvar-Systems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_framework_changes

List SCF control changes affecting a framework's mappings to monitor coverage evolution across releases. Requires Ansvar Intelligence Portal.

Instructions

Lists all SCF control changes that affected a specific framework's mappings. Useful for monitoring how framework coverage evolves across 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": {
      "framework": "<framework>"
    },
    "name": "get_framework_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
frameworkYesFramework key (e.g., "iso_27001_2022", "nist_csf_2.0")
sinceNoISO date to look back from (e.g., "2024-01-01")
limitNoMax results (default: 50, max: 200)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds the premium feature access requirement ('requires Ansvar Intelligence Portal'), but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, sorting, or typical response format.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and usage, with no wasted words.

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?

Given three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and access constraints. Could be slightly improved by noting return format or limits beyond the schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the three parameters.

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 clearly states the tool lists 'SCF control changes that affected a specific framework's mappings', providing a specific verb and resource scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_framework_controls and get_control_history.

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 explicitly says 'Useful for monitoring how framework coverage evolves across releases', giving a clear use case. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative tools, though the sibling list offers context.

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