Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
togaf10_EAP_MCP

togaf10_EAP_MCP

by Waganawa-Megumin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Visualize the risk matrix

risk_matrix

Plots engagement risks as level/status and current/residual matrices, flagging unassessed residual risks, missing owners, and severe risks without mitigation, then counts source-traced items and names untraced ones.

Instructions

保存されている案件のリスクを、レベル × 状態、および現在レベル × 残存レベルのマトリクスで可視化し、残存リスク未評価・受容者未設定・重大リスクの対策空欄などを要対応として指摘する。明細表には出典列(記号の凡例つき)が出て、出典の付いている件数を「N/M 件」で集計し、出典の無い項目を名指しする。 / Plot the stored engagement risks as level x status and current x residual matrices, and flag what needs attention: unassessed residual risk, missing owners, and severe risks with no mitigation. The detail table carries a source column with a legend, and the output counts how many entries can be traced back to a source and names the ones that cannot.

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": "risk_matrix"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNo出力言語 / Output languageboth

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that the tool visualizes stored data, flags specific risk categories, includes a source column with a legend, and aggregates traceable entries as 'N/M 件'. While it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, the phrasing 'Plot' and 'visualize' strongly indicates a read-only operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact yet information-dense, covering purpose, outputs, and specific flagging behavior in two sentences per language. Bilingual duplication slightly increases length, but each part contributes meaningful detail about behavior and output, so nothing is wasted.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is plotted, what is flagged, and what the detail table contains. The main gap is not stating whether it operates on the current engagement specifically or how it is selected, but the low complexity and rich behavioral detail keep this from being a major omission.

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 100% for the single lang parameter, which already documents the allowed values and default. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's specific purpose: plotting stored engagement risks as two matrix types (level × status, current × residual) and flagging attention items. It names concrete outputs such as unassessed residual risk, missing owners, and severe risks without mitigation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling diagram_risk_matrix, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

The description implies usage context by saying it 'flags what needs attention' and describes the output, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. In particular, sibling diagram_risk_matrix appears closely related, and the description does not explain the difference or when to use one versus the other.

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