Skip to main content
Glama
dfkunstler

MCP Server for OSCAL

by dfkunstler
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_catalog_groups

List groups within OSCAL Catalog documents to identify control families and retrieve their IDs, titles, and parent catalog details.

Instructions

List groups within OSCAL Catalog documents.

Groups organise controls into families (e.g. ac for Access Control). Group IDs are human-readable tokens unique within the containing catalog.

Args: ctx: MCP server context (injected automatically). parent_doc_uuid: Optional UUID to scope results to a single catalog. offset: Zero-based pagination offset (default 0). limit: Maximum items to return, 1-100 (default 10).

Returns: Page_Response dict with keys: items, total, offset, limit, hasMore. Each item contains: id, title, element_type, description, parentDocumentTitle, parentDocumentUuid.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo
parent_doc_uuidNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear the burden. It discloses pagination behavior and return format, plus group ID uniqueness. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is moderately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, but the Args section follows a docstring style that adds verbosity without additional value. Could be more streamlined.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, parameters, and return format. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not explain how groups relate to controls (sibling tool list_catalog_controls). The description is adequate but not fully complete for a nuanced hierarchy.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains all three parameters: parent_doc_uuid scopes to a catalog, offset is zero-based, limit is max 1-100 with defaults. This adds meaning beyond type/default alone.

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 'List groups within OSCAL Catalog documents' and explains that groups organize controls into families with unique IDs. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_catalogs and list_catalog_controls.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_catalogs or list_catalog_controls. The description mentions parent_doc_uuid for scoping but does not set context or exclusions.

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