Yes, as a structure. NIST AI 600-1 is a voluntary generative AI profile that helps organisations identify risks and plan actions. You can use it to organise your answers on AI tools and MCP servers, but you cannot be certified against it, so avoid language that implies you are.
What the document is
NIST publishes an AI Risk Management Framework. On 26 July 2024 NIST released NIST AI 600-1, the Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile, to help organisations identify risks unique to generative AI and propose actions for managing them. NIST's page also notes that the AI RMF 1.0 is being revised, so check the current status before you cite a version.
It is voluntary guidance. There is no audit, no seal and no pass mark.
How it helps with a questionnaire
Reviewers often ask for alignment with a recognised framework. A profile gives you a checklist of topics so your answers do not miss a risk area. It also gives you shared vocabulary with the reviewer.
A practical method:
- Read the profile's list of generative AI risks.
- For each one, decide whether it applies to your tools, features and agents.
- Write one sentence on the control you run and one piece of evidence.
- Mark gaps with an owner and a date.
- Keep the table in your answer bank.
This is the same shape as the OWASP mapping. Use both: the OWASP list is application and security focused, while the NIST profile is aimed at generative AI risk management more broadly.
Words to use
| Say | Avoid |
|---|---|
| "We use NIST AI 600-1 as a reference when assessing generative AI risk" | "We are NIST compliant" |
| "Our controls map to topics in the profile" | "Certified against NIST" |
| "We reviewed the risks and recorded decisions" | "All risks are mitigated" |
Alignment claims should be limited to what you can show. A mapping table with dates and owners is evidence. A logo is not.
Where agents and MCP fit
The profile is not specific to agents or MCP. Your table needs to say how each risk plays out when assistants call tools: excessive permissions, untrusted content steering actions, and data leaving through prompts. The MCP guidance on scope minimization, consent for local servers and human oversight provides concrete controls to cite alongside.
Keep it honest and current
Frameworks get updated. Add the version and date you used. If a reviewer asks about a newer publication, say when you will review it. For more on framework wording, see using standards as a map for startup questionnaires.
Evidence
The mapping table and the review notes. Safeguard's framework mapping and compliance and evidence automation help link artifacts to framework topics; this is organisational support, not a certification.
Try it yourself
Click through it at your own pace, or open it full screen. See how a control can be linked to the framework topics it supports.
Quick check
Can we say we align with NIST AI 600-1?
Only if you can show a mapping and review records. State it as use of a reference, not as compliance or certification.
Is it required for questionnaires?
No. It is voluntary guidance that reviewers may find helpful. Ask the buyer what they actually need.
Sources
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
