Skip to main content
Glama
konstruktoid

prescryb

by konstruktoid

map_compliance

Map a free-text topic to CIS/DISA STIG areas and ATT&CK techniques, returning matching hardening roles and MITRE mitigations.

Instructions

Map a free-text topic to CIS Benchmark / DISA STIG topic areas and ATT&CK.

`area` examples: 'ssh', 'sudo', 'kernel modules', 'password policy'. If a
matching role is found in the konstruktoid.hardening GitHub repo, it is
returned too. Also returns the MITRE ATT&CK techniques (and, where
defined, the ATT&CK mitigation) that hardening this area addresses.

Only topic-area mapping is returned for CIS/DISA STIG, never fabricated
specific rule IDs (e.g. "CIS 5.2.1") - those require the licensed
benchmark text. Consult the referenced role's own docs/tags for exactly
what it covers. ATT&CK technique/mitigation IDs, by contrast, are
MITRE's own public catalog (attack.mitre.org), so they're cited directly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
areaYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that only topic-area mapping is returned, not rule IDs, and explains why ATT&CK IDs are cited directly.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence and explanatory notes, though it is slightly verbose with disclaimers. It earns its place but could be tightened.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (role, ATT&CK techniques, mitigations) without over-specifying format.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing concrete examples for the 'area' parameter (e.g., 'ssh', 'sudo') and explaining its purpose.

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 maps a free-text topic to CIS Benchmark/DISA STIG topic areas, ATT&CK techniques, and optionally a GitHub role. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from sibling tools like check_cves and generate_playbook.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool (mapping topics) and what not to expect (no specific rule IDs). It also provides alternative contexts by referencing licensed vs. public catalogs.

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/konstruktoid/prescryb'

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