Maps GuardBee runtime findings to OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications (2025) and MITRE ATLAS, clarifying which threat categories each security report covers.
Show how GuardBee's runtime findings map to OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications (2025) and MITRE ATLAS — the mapping guardbee-proxy report uses
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the output is the same mapping used by the guardbee-proxy report and which frameworks are covered, but it does not state that this is a static reference table (no inputs, no live scanning) rather than something computed from findings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The em-dash clause about guardbee-proxy is slightly trailing but adds genuine provenance context rather than waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-param tool with no output schema, the description gives the frameworks but not the shape of the returned mapping (e.g., rule/technique identifiers to OWASP/ATLAS categories, or how granular it is). Adequate to identify the tool, thin on what the agent actually gets back.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related ambiguity is introduced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (show a mapping) and names both target frameworks (OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025, MITRE ATLAS), which is far more specific than a tautology. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like threat_rules__list_rules or rule_stats, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion. The reader can infer it is a reference/lookup aid for interpreting runtime findings, but nothing tells the agent when to call this instead of threat_rules__list_rules, rule_stats, or explain_bridge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.