Skip to main content
Glama
cloudcwfranck

@cloudcraftwithfranck/govcloud-mcp

devsecops_scorecard

Assess a software factory's DevSecOps maturity against DoD standards and CNCF security practices. Receive a scored assessment with a prioritized improvement roadmap.

Instructions

Generate a DoD DevSecOps maturity scorecard for a software factory or program. Scores against the DoD DevSecOps Reference Design and CNCF security best practices. Returns a scored assessment with a prioritized improvement roadmap.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
programNameYesProgram or system name
currentCapabilitiesYesList current DevSecOps capabilities e.g. ["gitlab-ci","sonarqube","twistlock","vault","big-bang","tekton"]
targetLevelYesTarget IL level
softwareFactoryTypeNoType of software factory (default: platform-one)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the DevSecOps scorecard tool logic. Takes validated args, calls Anthropic Claude with a detailed system prompt about DoD DevSecOps maturity scoring, and returns the AI-generated scorecard response.
    export async function handleDevsecopsScorecard(args: unknown): Promise<string> {
      return runTool('devsecops_scorecard', args, Schema, async ({ programName, currentCapabilities, targetLevel, softwareFactoryType }) => {
        const response = await anthropic.messages.create({
          model: MODEL,
          max_tokens: getTokenBudget('devsecops_scorecard'),
          system: PIPELINE_SYSTEM,
          messages: [
            {
              role: 'user',
              content: `Generate a DoD DevSecOps maturity scorecard for **${programName}** targeting **${targetLevel}** using a **${softwareFactoryType}** software factory.
    
    **Current Capabilities:** ${currentCapabilities.length > 0 ? currentCapabilities.join(', ') : 'None specified'}
    
    Score against the DoD DevSecOps Reference Design v2.0 pillars:
    
    1. **Overall Maturity Score** (0-100) with level:
       - 0-25: Initial (ad hoc)
       - 26-50: Managed (repeatable)
       - 51-75: Defined (standardized)
       - 76-90: Measured (quantified)
       - 91-100: Optimized (continuous improvement)
    
    2. **Pillar Scores** (0-20 each):
       | Pillar | Score | Status | Key Gaps |
       |--------|-------|--------|----------|
       | Source Code Security | /20 | | |
       | Build Security | /20 | | |
       | Container Security | /20 | | |
       | Deploy Security | /20 | | |
       | Runtime Security | /20 | | |
    
    3. **${targetLevel.toUpperCase()} Compliance Gaps** — capabilities required but missing:
       - What's blocking ATO at ${targetLevel}
       - Specific DoD policy references (DoDI 5000.82, CISA guidance)
    
    4. **Capability Matrix**:
       | Capability | Required for ${targetLevel} | Current Status | Gap |
       |------------|--------------------------|----------------|-----|
    
    5. **Prioritized Improvement Roadmap**:
       - **Immediate (0-30 days):** Quick wins that unblock ATO
       - **Short-term (30-90 days):** Foundation capabilities
       - **Medium-term (90-180 days):** Full ${targetLevel} compliance
       - Each item: effort (S/M/L), impact (High/Med/Low), tool recommendation
    
    6. **Platform One Specific Guidance** (if platform-one factory):
       - Which Platform One capabilities to leverage vs. build
       - Big Bang addons that address specific gaps
    
    7. **Authority to Operate Impact** — how current score affects ATO timeline and what the AO will focus on`,
            },
          ],
        });
    
        return response.content[0].type === 'text' ? response.content[0].text : '';
      });
    }
  • Zod validation schema for the tool's input: programName (string max 500), currentCapabilities (array of strings, max 20), targetLevel (enum: il2/il4/il5), softwareFactoryType (enum: platform-one/custom/iron-bank-consumer, defaults to platform-one).
    const Schema = z.object({
      programName: z.string().max(500),
      currentCapabilities: z.array(z.string().max(500)).max(20),
      targetLevel: z.enum(['il2', 'il4', 'il5']),
      softwareFactoryType: z.enum(['platform-one', 'custom', 'iron-bank-consumer']).default('platform-one'),
    });
  • Tool registration object with name 'devsecops_scorecard', description, and JSON Schema input definition listing required properties (programName, currentCapabilities, targetLevel) and optional softwareFactoryType.
    export const devsecopsScoreCardTool = {
      name: 'devsecops_scorecard',
      description:
        'Generate a DoD DevSecOps maturity scorecard for a software factory or program. Scores against the DoD DevSecOps Reference Design and CNCF security best practices. Returns a scored assessment with a prioritized improvement roadmap.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object' as const,
        properties: {
          programName: { type: 'string', description: 'Program or system name' },
          currentCapabilities: {
            type: 'array',
            items: { type: 'string' },
            description:
              'List current DevSecOps capabilities e.g. ["gitlab-ci","sonarqube","twistlock","vault","big-bang","tekton"]',
          },
          targetLevel: {
            type: 'string',
            enum: ['il2', 'il4', 'il5'],
            description: 'Target IL level',
          },
          softwareFactoryType: {
            type: 'string',
            enum: ['platform-one', 'custom', 'iron-bank-consumer'],
            description: 'Type of software factory (default: platform-one)',
          },
        },
        required: ['programName', 'currentCapabilities', 'targetLevel'],
      },
    };
  • Tool registered in the allTools array, making it available as an MCP tool.
    devsecopsScoreCardTool,
    // Documents
    sspSectionTool,
    contingencyPlanTool,
    // Meta
    govcloudQuickstartTool,
  • Switch-case routing in handleToolCall that dispatches 'devsecops_scorecard' requests to the handleDevsecopsScorecard handler.
        case 'devsecops_scorecard':   return handleDevsecopsScorecard(args);
        case 'ssp_section':           return handleSspSection(args);
        case 'contingency_plan':      return handleContingencyPlan(args);
        case 'govcloud_quickstart':   return handleGovcloudQuickstart(args);
        default:
          throw new Error(`Unknown tool: ${name}`);
      }
    }
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the output (scored assessment and roadmap) but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or whether the tool is read-only. The description adds value beyond the input schema by outlining the return format, but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and then provides specifics about scoring and output. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description provides a useful overview of the return value (scored assessment and roadmap). It covers the tool's role in the DevSecOps domain. However, it lacks specifics on the scoring scale or output format, which would enhance completeness.

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%, so the input schema already describes all parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond the overall purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Generate', identifies the resource as 'DoD DevSecOps maturity scorecard', and specifies the scoring basis (DoD DevSecOps Reference Design and CNCF best practices) and output (scored assessment with improvement roadmap). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'pipeline_audit' or 'ato_readiness'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the tool does but does not provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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