Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ai-security-wiki

ai-security-wiki

by MathBorgess
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_control

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a DASF control by ID, including platform documentation, source mappings, and project-authored verification criteria for AI security risk and control assessment.

Instructions

Read one DASF control, platform documentation, source mappings and project-authored verification criteria.

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"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
control_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned content bundle (docs, mappings, verification criteria), but says nothing about not-found behavior, size of the documentation payload, or identifier validity.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the payload list is compact and immediately useful.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned artifacts, which is the key unknown for a lookup tool. Remaining gaps (ID format, error behavior) are minor given annotation coverage but not zero.

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 0% and the single parameter is undocumented, but the description's phrase 'one DASF control' at least signals that control_id is a DASF control identifier. It still does not explain the expected ID format or where the agent should obtain valid IDs.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one DASF control') and enumerates the payload (platform documentation, source mappings, verification criteria), so the agent knows exactly what a call yields. It does not name a sibling to contrast with, though get_risk/get_reference are close enough that differentiation would have helped.

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?

'Read one' implies a single-ID lookup, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_reference, get_risk, or search_knowledge, and no prerequisites (e.g., where a control_id comes from) are given.

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