llm-assure-mcp

list_suites

Lists available attack and evaluation suites with OWASP mappings and probe counts, including extra suite YAML directories you provide.

Instructions

List available attack/eval suites with their OWASP mapping and probe counts.

Args: pack_dirs: optional directories containing extra suite YAML files.

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": "list_suites"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pack_dirs`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two useful behavioral facts: results are annotated with OWASP mapping and probe counts, and pack_dirs extends the set with extra suite YAML files. It omits whether default suites are always included, whether calls are purely read-only, and any pagination or ordering behavior.

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 short lines with zero filler, front-loading the purpose before the parameter note. The only minor noise is the "Args:" docstring artifact, which is harmless.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the single optional parameter is explained. Still, for a listing tool whose whole job is producing a catalog, the description never says where the default suites come from or what an agent should do with the results next.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: pack_dirs is explained as optional directories containing extra suite YAML files, which conveys both format (YAML pack dirs) and that the base suite list exists without it. It does not state how duplicates or conflicts between packs and built-ins are resolved.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ("List") plus a specific resource ("attack/eval suites") and even previews the payload (OWASP mapping and probe counts). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby list_probes or explain how it relates to run_assessment.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus list_probes or run_assessment, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Discovery-before-running is only implied by the word "List".

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

Deploy Server