Skip to main content
Glama
geoffwhittington

SD Elements MCP Server

list_countermeasures

Identify and filter countermeasures for a project by status and page size using the SD Elements MCP Server, enabling efficient security development lifecycle management.

Instructions

List countermeasures for a project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
page_sizeNoNumber of results per page (optional)
project_idYesThe ID of the project
statusNoFilter by countermeasure status

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'list_countermeasures' MCP tool. It is decorated with @mcp.tool(), which serves as both the implementation and registration. The function takes project_id and optional filters, queries the SD Elements API via api_client, and returns the result as formatted JSON.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def list_countermeasures(ctx: Context, project_id: int, status: Optional[str] = None, page_size: Optional[int] = None, risk_relevant: bool = True) -> str:
        """List all countermeasures for a project. Use this to see countermeasures associated with a project, not get_project which returns project details."""
        global api_client
        if api_client is None:
            api_client = init_api_client()
        params = {}
        if status is not None:
            params["status"] = status
        if page_size is not None:
            params["page_size"] = page_size
        params["risk_relevant"] = str(risk_relevant).lower()
        result = api_client.list_countermeasures(project_id, params)
        return json.dumps(result, indent=2)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but does not describe key traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how pagination works (implied by 'page_size' but not explained), or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a list operation with pagination and filtering, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage guidelines, failing to compensate for the missing structured data and leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective tool invocation.

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%, so the input schema fully documents the parameters (project_id, page_size, status). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List countermeasures for a project' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('countermeasures'), and specifies the scope ('for a project'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_countermeasure' (singular) or explain what distinguishes listing from getting, leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use 'list_countermeasures' over 'get_countermeasure' (e.g., for multiple items vs. a single one), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, offering only basic context without actionable usage advice.

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

Related 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/geoffwhittington/sde-mcp'

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