Skip to main content
Glama
cloudcwfranck

@cloudcraftwithfranck/govcloud-mcp

ato_readiness

Score your system against FedRAMP/DoD ATO requirements to identify critical gaps, estimate timeline, and get prioritized actions.

Instructions

Score a system description against FedRAMP/DoD ATO requirements. Returns readiness score, critical gaps, estimated timeline, and prioritized next actions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
systemDescriptionYesDescribe the system
azureServicesYesAzure services in scope
targetAuthorizationYesTarget authorization level
currentMaturityYesCurrent compliance maturity
existingDocumentationNoExisting docs e.g. ["SSP draft","PIA","FIPS-199"]

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function handleAtoReadiness that executes the tool logic: takes args, validates via Zod schema, calls Anthropic API with a specialized ATO readiness system prompt, and returns the assessment text.
    export async function handleAtoReadiness(args: unknown): Promise<string> {
      return runTool('ato_readiness', args, Schema, async ({ systemDescription, azureServices, targetAuthorization, currentMaturity, existingDocumentation }) => {
        const response = await anthropic.messages.create({
          model: MODEL,
          max_tokens: getTokenBudget('ato_readiness'),
          system: ATO_SYSTEM,
          messages: [
            {
              role: 'user',
              content: `Assess ATO readiness for this system:
    
    **Target Authorization:** ${targetAuthorization}
    **Current Maturity:** ${currentMaturity}
    **Azure Services:** ${azureServices.join(', ')}
    **Existing Documentation:** ${(existingDocumentation ?? []).length > 0 ? (existingDocumentation ?? []).join(', ') : 'None'}
    
    **System Description:**
    ${systemDescription}
    
    Provide the complete readiness assessment including the brutally honest AO kickoff risks.`,
            },
          ],
        });
    
        return response.content[0].type === 'text' ? response.content[0].text : '';
      });
    }
  • Zod schema (Schema) for validating inputs: systemDescription, azureServices, targetAuthorization, currentMaturity, existingDocumentation.
    const Schema = z.object({
      systemDescription: z.string().max(2000),
      azureServices: z.array(z.string().max(500)).max(50),
      targetAuthorization: z.enum(['fedramp-moderate', 'fedramp-high', 'dod-il4', 'dod-il5', 'dod-il6']),
      currentMaturity: z.enum(['initial', 'developing', 'defined', 'managed']),
      existingDocumentation: z.array(z.string().max(500)).default([]),
    });
  • atoReadinessTool definition with name 'ato_readiness', description, and JSON inputSchema (type, properties, required fields).
    export const atoReadinessTool = {
      name: 'ato_readiness',
      description:
        'Score a system description against FedRAMP/DoD ATO requirements. Returns readiness score, critical gaps, estimated timeline, and prioritized next actions.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object' as const,
        properties: {
          systemDescription: { type: 'string', description: 'Describe the system' },
          azureServices: {
            type: 'array',
            items: { type: 'string' },
            description: 'Azure services in scope',
          },
          targetAuthorization: {
            type: 'string',
            enum: ['fedramp-moderate', 'fedramp-high', 'dod-il4', 'dod-il5', 'dod-il6'],
            description: 'Target authorization level',
          },
          currentMaturity: {
            type: 'string',
            enum: ['initial', 'developing', 'defined', 'managed'],
            description: 'Current compliance maturity',
          },
          existingDocumentation: {
            type: 'array',
            items: { type: 'string' },
            description: 'Existing docs e.g. ["SSP draft","PIA","FIPS-199"]',
          },
        },
        required: ['systemDescription', 'azureServices', 'targetAuthorization', 'currentMaturity'],
      },
    };
  • Case branch in handleToolCall that routes the 'ato_readiness' tool name to handleAtoReadiness(args).
    case 'ato_readiness':         return handleAtoReadiness(args);
  • Token budget configuration for ato_readiness (4096 tokens) in TOKEN_BUDGETS.
    ato_readiness: 4096,
    control_lookup: 4096,
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns scores, gaps, timeline, and actions, implying a read-only analysis. However, it does not explicitly state whether it modifies any state or has side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs. There is no wasted text, and it is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 the complexity of ATO readiness and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately summarizes the returns (score, gaps, timeline, actions). It could be more detailed about format but sufficiently sets expectations.

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 description coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions already provided. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of parameters.

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's purpose: scoring a system description against FedRAMP/DoD ATO requirements. It specifies the resource (system description) and the action (score), distinguishing it from sibling tools like control_lookup or ssp_section which have different functions.

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?

The description implies use when a user needs to assess compliance readiness, listing outputs like readiness score and gaps. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives among siblings. Still, the context is clear enough for most agents.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cloudcwfranck/govcloud-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server