framework-mcp 2.4.6 → 2.6.0

package/examples/example-usage.md

@@ -1,293 +0,0 @@
-# Framework MCP Usage Examples
-
-## 🔧 Available Tools (4 Total)
-
-| Tool | Purpose | Example Use Case |
-|------|---------|------------------|
-| `validate_vendor_mapping` | **PRIMARY** - Validate claimed capabilities | "Does CrowdStrike really provide FULL coverage for asset inventory?" |
-| `analyze_vendor_response` | Determine appropriate capability role | "What capability should we assign to this vendor response?" |
-| `get_safeguard_details` | Get safeguard breakdown | "Show me all requirements for safeguard 5.1" |
-| `list_available_safeguards` | List all CIS safeguards | "What safeguards are available for analysis?" |
-
----
-
-## 1. validate_vendor_mapping (PRIMARY Tool)
-
-**Purpose**: Evidence-based validation of vendor capability claims through comprehensive content analysis
-
-### Example 1: FULL Capability Validation (Strong Evidence)
-```bash
-claude-code "Use validate_vendor_mapping to validate:
-Vendor: AssetMax Pro
-Safeguard: 1.1
-Claimed Capability: full
-Supporting Text: Our platform provides comprehensive automated discovery, detailed inventory management with hardware/software tracking, enterprise asset ownership records, departmental assignments, network address management, and documented bi-annual review processes for all enterprise devices."
-```
-
-**Expected Result**: SUPPORTED (high confidence with strong evidence coverage)
-
-### Example 2: PARTIAL Capability Validation (Limited Scope)
-```bash
-claude-code "Use validate_vendor_mapping to validate:
-Vendor: NetworkScanner Pro
-Safeguard: 1.1  
-Claimed Capability: partial
-Supporting Text: Our network scanner provides comprehensive discovery and detailed inventory of network-connected devices including hardware specifications and operating systems, but is limited to devices accessible via network protocols and does not track software installations or offline systems."
-```
-
-**Expected Result**: SUPPORTED (partial coverage with clearly defined scope limitations)
-
-### Example 3: FACILITATES Capability Validation
-```bash
-claude-code "Use validate_vendor_mapping to validate:
-Vendor: SecureAudit Plus
-Safeguard: 5.1
-Claimed Capability: facilitates  
-Supporting Text: Our audit platform enhances existing identity management by providing detailed account usage analytics, compliance reporting, and risk-based account prioritization that strengthens account inventory processes."
-```
-
-**Expected Result**: SUPPORTED (clear facilitation language and enhancement capabilities)
-
----
-
-## 2. analyze_vendor_response
-
-**Purpose**: Determine appropriate capability role when unknown
-
-### Example 1: Identity Management Analysis
-```bash
-claude-code "Use analyze_vendor_response to analyze:
-Vendor: Microsoft Entra ID
-Safeguard: 5.1
-Response Text: We provide centralized identity management with automated user provisioning, comprehensive account lifecycle management, role-based access controls, detailed user directories with departmental tracking, and automated quarterly access reviews with compliance reporting."
-```
-
-**Expected Result**: FULL capability (comprehensive identity management with strong evidence)
-
-### Example 2: Secondary Capability Analysis  
-```bash
-claude-code "Use analyze_vendor_response to analyze:
-Vendor: Nessus Vulnerability Scanner
-Safeguard: 1.1
-Response Text: During vulnerability assessments, we perform comprehensive network discovery and maintain detailed device databases with operating system detection, service enumeration, and hardware fingerprinting."
-```
-
-**Expected Result**: FACILITATES capability (indirect support through discovery capabilities)
-
----
-
-## 3. get_safeguard_details
-
-**Purpose**: Understand safeguard requirements and structure
-
-### Example 1: Basic Safeguard Details
-```bash
-claude-code "Use get_safeguard_details for safeguard 1.1"
-```
-
-### Example 2: Detailed Safeguard with Examples
-```bash  
-claude-code "Use get_safeguard_details for safeguard 5.1 with include_examples set to true"
-```
-
-### Example 3: Multiple Safeguards Research
-```bash
-claude-code "Use get_safeguard_details to show me the requirements for safeguards 1.1, 5.1, and 6.3, then explain the differences in their governance elements"
-```
-
----
-
-## 4. list_available_safeguards
-
-**Purpose**: Discover available CIS safeguards for analysis
-
-### Example 1: Complete Safeguard List
-```bash
-claude-code "Use list_available_safeguards to show all available CIS safeguards"
-```
-
-### Example 2: Safeguard Discovery for Planning
-```bash
-claude-code "Use list_available_safeguards then identify which safeguards are most relevant for endpoint security vendor assessment"
-```
-
----
-
-## 🎯 Advanced Workflow Examples
-
-### Comprehensive Vendor Assessment
-```bash
-# Step 1: Research the safeguard
-claude-code "Use get_safeguard_details for safeguard 1.1 to understand requirements"
-
-# Step 2: Analyze vendor response  
-claude-code "Use analyze_vendor_response for vendor 'Lansweeper' and safeguard '1.1' with response: 'Our IT asset management platform provides automated network discovery, comprehensive hardware and software inventory, detailed asset tracking with ownership and location data, and customizable reporting for compliance requirements.'"
-
-# Step 3: Validate specific capability claim
-claude-code "Use validate_vendor_mapping to validate Lansweeper's claim of 'full' capability for safeguard 1.1 with the same response text"
-```
-
-### Bulk Vendor Analysis
-```bash
-# Create vendors.json file first
-claude-code "Use analyze_vendor_response for each vendor in this list:
-1. Vendor: CrowdStrike, Safeguard: 1.1, Response: 'Falcon provides real-time asset visibility...'
-2. Vendor: Qualys VMDR, Safeguard: 1.1, Response: 'Our scanner discovers and inventories...'  
-3. Vendor: ServiceNow CMDB, Safeguard: 1.1, Response: 'Complete asset lifecycle management...'"
-```
-
-### Insufficient Evidence Testing
-```bash
-# Test validation with insufficient evidence
-claude-code "Use validate_vendor_mapping to test evidence analysis:
-Vendor: BasicTracker
-Safeguard: 1.1 (Asset Inventory)
-Claimed: full
-Supporting Text: We help track computers and provide some visibility into your IT environment."
-```
-
-**Expected**: UNSUPPORTED (insufficient evidence for FULL capability claim)
-
----
-
-## 📊 Sample Responses
-
-### Successful FULL Validation
-```json
-{
-  "vendor_name": "ServiceNow CMDB",
-  "safeguard_id": "1.1",
-  "validation_status": "SUPPORTED",
-  "confidence_score": 92,
-  "validated_capability": "full",
-  "content_validation": {
-    "implementation_depth": "comprehensive",
-    "scope_clarity": "well_defined", 
-    "evidence_strength": "strong",
-    "capability_aligned": true
-  },
-  "evidence_analysis": {
-    "core_requirements_score": 95,
-    "sub_elements_score": 85,
-    "governance_elements_score": 90,
-    "language_consistency_score": 98
-  }
-}
-```
-
-### Insufficient Evidence Example
-```json
-{
-  "vendor_name": "BasicTracker", 
-  "safeguard_id": "1.1",
-  "validation_status": "UNSUPPORTED",
-  "confidence_score": 35,
-  "claimed_capability": "full",
-  "validated_capability": "facilitates",
-  "content_validation": {
-    "implementation_depth": "limited",
-    "scope_clarity": "vague",
-    "evidence_strength": "weak", 
-    "capability_aligned": false
-  },
-  "gaps_identified": [
-    "Insufficient detail on asset tracking capabilities",
-    "Missing governance and review processes"
-  ]
-}
-```
-
----
-
-## 🔍 Real-World Scenarios
-
-### GRC Team Assessment
-```bash
-# Scenario: Evaluating vendors for CIS Control 5 (Account Management)
-claude-code "Use get_safeguard_details for safeguard 5.1 then analyze these vendor responses for capability roles:
-
-1. Okta: 'Comprehensive identity lifecycle management with automated provisioning, detailed user directories, and quarterly access reviews'
-2. Active Directory: 'Centralized user account management with group policies and basic reporting'  
-3. SailPoint: 'Identity governance with automated access reviews, certification campaigns, and detailed account analytics'"
-```
-
-### Security Tool Validation
-```bash
-# Scenario: Vendor claims validation for compliance audit
-claude-code "Use validate_vendor_mapping to validate these capability claims:
-
-Vendor: CyberArk PAM
-Safeguard: 5.1
-Claimed: full  
-Supporting Text: Our privileged access management solution maintains comprehensive inventories of all privileged accounts, implements automated lifecycle management, provides detailed access tracking with ownership records, and includes quarterly certification processes with full audit trails."
-```
-
-### Multi-Safeguard Assessment
-```bash
-# Scenario: Comprehensive vendor evaluation across multiple controls
-claude-code "Analyze this vendor across multiple safeguards:
-
-Vendor: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint
-Safeguards to assess: 1.1, 1.2, 7.1
-Vendor Response: 'Our endpoint protection platform provides comprehensive asset discovery and inventory, unauthorized device detection and blocking, continuous vulnerability assessment with automated patch management, and detailed security reporting across all enterprise endpoints.'"
-```
-
----
-
-## 💡 Pro Tips
-
-### 1. Understanding Content Analysis
-- **Implementation Details**: Look for specific technical capabilities and processes
-- **Scope Definition**: Identify clear boundaries and limitations in vendor claims
-- **Evidence Quality**: Assess depth and specificity of supporting information
-- **Language Consistency**: Ensure alignment between claims and supporting evidence
-
-### 2. Optimizing Confidence Scores
-- **High scores (80-100%)**: Comprehensive coverage with specific implementation details
-- **Medium scores (50-79%)**: Good coverage but missing some elements  
-- **Low scores (0-49%)**: Limited coverage or vague responses
-
-### 3. Common Validation Patterns
-- **SUPPORTED**: Evidence strongly aligns with claimed capability
-- **QUESTIONABLE**: Partial support with notable gaps or inconsistencies
-- **UNSUPPORTED**: Evidence does not support the claimed capability
-
-### 4. Best Practices
-- Always research safeguard requirements first using `get_safeguard_details`
-- Use `analyze_vendor_response` when capability role is unknown
-- Use `validate_vendor_mapping` when testing specific capability claims
-- Include detailed vendor response text for better analysis accuracy
-
----
-
-## 🚀 Integration Examples
-
-### Claude Code Commands
-```bash
-# Quick capability check
-claude-code "What capability role should Rapid7 InsightVM have for safeguard 7.1?"
-
-# Detailed validation
-claude-code "Validate whether Lansweeper can provide FULL coverage for asset inventory (safeguard 1.1)"
-
-# Comparative analysis  
-claude-code "Compare the capability roles of ServiceNow CMDB vs Lansweeper vs Device42 for safeguard 1.1"
-```
-
-### HTTP API Examples
-```bash
-# Health check
-curl https://your-api.com/health
-
-# List safeguards
-curl https://your-api.com/api/safeguards
-
-# Validate capability
-curl -X POST https://your-api.com/api/validate-vendor-mapping \
-  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-  -d '{"vendor_name":"Test Vendor","safeguard_id":"1.1","claimed_capability":"facilitates","supporting_text":"Our tool enhances existing asset management systems with additional discovery capabilities and detailed reporting features."}'
-```
-
----
-
-**📝 Note**: All examples use real CIS Controls v8.1 safeguards and demonstrate actual vendor assessment scenarios.