Skip to main content
Glama
msaad00

agent-bom

by msaad00
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python

Compliance Posture

compliance
Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess AI security compliance by scanning MCP configs and Docker images against OWASP LLM Top 10, MCP Top 10, MITRE ATLAS, and NIST AI RMF frameworks.

Instructions

Get OWASP LLM Top 10 / OWASP MCP Top 10 / MITRE ATLAS / NIST AI RMF compliance posture.

    Scans local MCP configurations, maps findings to 47 security controls
    across four AI security frameworks, and returns per-control
    pass/warning/fail status with an overall compliance score.

    Args:
        config_path: Path to a specific MCP config directory.
                     If not provided, auto-discovers all local agent configs.
        image: Docker image reference to scan (e.g. "nginx:1.25").

    Returns:
        JSON with overall_score (0-100), overall_status (pass/warning/fail),
        and per-control details for OWASP LLM Top 10 (10 controls),
        OWASP MCP Top 10 (10 controls), MITRE ATLAS (13 techniques),
        and NIST AI RMF (14 subcategories).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
config_pathNoPath to MCP client config directory. Auto-discovers all if omitted.
imageNoDocker image to scan, e.g. 'nginx:1.25'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Tool Definition Quality

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool scans local MCP configs, maps findings to 47 controls, and returns per-control pass/warning/fail status with an overall score, which is consistent and adds useful detail.

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 clear sections for purpose, args, and returns. It is slightly verbose (e.g., listing all framework control counts) but remains focused and front-loaded with the key frameworks.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description fully explains the tool's purpose, parameters (including defaults), output structure, and supported frameworks. Given the rich annotations and output schema, no additional context is needed for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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?

Both parameters ('config_path', 'image') are fully documented in the input schema with descriptions. The description rephrases these slightly (e.g., 'Auto-discovers all local agent configs') but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves compliance posture for four specific AI security frameworks (OWASP LLM Top 10, OWASP MCP Top 10, MITRE ATLAS, NIST AI RMF) by scanning MCP configurations and mapping to 47 controls. It is distinct from sibling scanning tools like 'cis_benchmark' and 'aisvs_benchmark'.

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 implies use for compliance assessment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'cis_benchmark' or 'policy_check'. No exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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/msaad00/agent-bom'

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