cheat_sheetOWASP Cheat Sheet Series — concise, practical defensive guidance. With a topic, returns the matching cheat sheet as Markdown (or candidate matches if ambiguous). Without a topic, lists all available cheat sheets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | Topic or sheet name, e.g. "SQL Injection", "JWT", "password storage". Omit to list all sheets. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "topic": "SQL Injection"
+ },
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: returning Markdown, handling ambiguous topics with candidate matches, and the all-sheets listing behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences with no wasted words. The key behaviors (with/without topic, output format) are front-loaded and clearly communicated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single optional parameter, no output schema) and detailed annotations, the description fully covers the expected behavior, including edge cases like ambiguity and list mode.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'topic' parameter. The description adds the nuance of candidate matches for ambiguous topics, but the schema already explains the parameter's purpose and omission behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns cheat sheets as Markdown, handling both explicit topics (with ambiguity resolution) and listing all sheets when no topic is provided. This verb-resource pairing is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to provide a topic (to get a specific sheet) and when to omit it (to list all). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient for proper usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools overlap in purpose, especially the Pipeworx data query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and the Polymarket betting tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.). Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent may still struggle to choose the correct one.
Most tool names use snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim). Some deviations exist (e.g., entity_profile, cheat_sheet) but overall the pattern is predictable.
34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Owasp', as only 4 are directly OWASP-related (asvs_chapters, asvs_requirements, cheat_sheet, top10). The remaining 30 tools are for general data querying and betting, making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.
The OWASP domain is partially covered with ASVS requirements, cheat sheets, and Top 10 lists. However, notable gaps exist, such as the OWASP Testing Guide, Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM), or risk assessment tools. The Pipeworx tools are comprehensive but not relevant to OWASP.