Rawa

Get compliance review

get_compliance

Read-onlyIdempotent

The compliance review of one creative, where the workspace runs them: overall score out of 100, risk level (low, medium, high) and each failed check with what it flagged and how to fix it. Returns status 'not_checked' when the creative was never reviewed.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`brandId`	No	A brand id from get_workspace or list_brands, or the brand's name. Omit it when the organization has a single brand.
`creativeId`	Yes	A creative id from list_creatives, search_library, get_job or get_upload.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`market`	No
`status`	Yes
`markets`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`riskLevel`	No
`creativeId`	Yes
`failedChecks`	No
`overallScore`	No
`passedChecks`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 31, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / markets

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / brandId / description

Previous value: -"A brand id from get_workspace or list_brands. Omit it when the organization has a single brand."New value: +"A brand id from get_workspace or list_brands, or the brand's name. Omit it when the organization has a single brand."

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by defining the result shape and the 'not_checked' sentinel for never-reviewed creatives. It does not say what happens if compliance is unavailable for the workspace or whether failed checks are paginated/truncated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core identification ('compliance review of one creative') is front-loaded before the return-shape detail and the not_checked caveat.

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?

For a two-param read with full schema coverage and an output schema, this is nearly complete; the return-value summary is arguably redundant with the output schema but aids tool selection. The only real gap is no mention of the error/unavailable case when a workspace does not run compliance reviews.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both brandId (fallback to brand name, omit for single-brand orgs) and creativeId (source tools) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of 'one creative', so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('The compliance review of one creative') and enumerates what the response contains (score out of 100, risk level, failed checks with fixes). That is far more precise than a sibling like get_creative_insights, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'where the workspace runs them' hints compliance only exists in some workspaces, and the 'not_checked' note tells the agent what a null result means. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative (e.g., get_creative or get_creative_insights).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Rawa tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?