Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
healthsec-mcp

healthsec-mcp

by MichaelEnny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

assess_attack_coverage

Scores MITRE ATT&CK-style threat coverage from per-control test results, using PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL statuses to calculate overall coverage.

Instructions

Score MITRE ATT&CK-style threat-coverage from per-control test results.

    Each entry in `control_set` needs `result` ("PASS"/"PARTIAL"/"FAIL")
    and may include `mitigation_implemented`/`tested` booleans. A
    PARTIAL counts as half-covered.

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_set": "<control_set>"
    },
    "name": "assess_attack_coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
control_setYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains that PARTIAL counts as half-covered, but does not describe the output format, error handling, or any side effects. Some behavioral info is given, but significant gaps remain.

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?

The description is concise, with two sentences and a bullet-like list of required fields. No unnecessary words, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains input requirements but does not mention what the scoring output looks like. Slightly incomplete, but sufficient for most use cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no property definitions (additionalProperties: true), so the description is essential. It specifies that each entry needs 'result' with values 'PASS'/'PARTIAL'/'FAIL' and optional booleans, adding critical meaning beyond the schema.

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 scores MITRE ATT&CK-style threat-coverage from per-control test results. The verb 'score' and resource 'threat-coverage' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like score_audit_completeness and score_compliance.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: when you have per-control test results with specific fields. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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