nightmare-probe-engine
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| nightmare_generateC | Generate deterministic evidence-seeking security hypotheses from fleet observations. |
| nightmare_compile_probeC | Compile one hypothesis into a bounded targeted probe plan with optional control cohort. |
| nightmare_evaluate_probeC | Evaluate target and control observations against a hypothesis and return a falsification/specificity verdict. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool handles a distinct lifecycle stage: generating hypotheses, compiling them into probes, and evaluating results. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity between the three tools.
All tools share the nightmare_ prefix and use verb_noun style. nightmare_generate lacks an explicit object compared to nightmare_compile_probe and nightmare_evaluate_probe, but the intent is still clear.
Three tools map directly to a focused generate-compile-evaluate workflow. The count feels intentional and well-scoped for a single-purpose security probe engine.
The tool set covers the full hypothesis-to-verdict pipeline without obvious dead ends. It may rely on external systems for actual probe execution, but within its stated domain it appears complete.