Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

NIS2 ICT Supply-Chain Diligence Scorer (Art. 21(2)(d) / ENISA)

score_nis2_supply_chain_diligence
Read-onlyIdempotent

NIS2 ICT Supply-Chain Diligence Scorer (Art. 21(2)(d) / ENISA): OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_mandate). Deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node. By default (compute:"auto") inputs are computed server-side on Cloudflare Workers for gpu:false nodes with a registered kernel; compute:"browser" forces client-side execution and returns a browser delegation URL instead. gpu:true nodes always delegate to the browser. Inputs are processed transiently to compute the response and are not stored, logged, or retained. Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only. Exports an AP2 artifact with execution_hash for chain provenance. Consumes upstream artifacts from: art-144-nis2-incident-significance-scorer. Output feeds: art-146-nis2-governance-readiness-checker. Open at: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/art-145-nis2-ict-supply-chain-diligence-scorer.html FV-status (published/proven/still-trusted for this spec): /fv-status/8498d0819c941fdb731f9e10f5d93ee929026919cb111a42149821b48b5ac180.json — a snapshot, not a subscription; this receipt verifies offline regardless of whether that file is ever fetched. Output schema: call describe_tool("score_nis2_supply_chain_diligence").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
computeNoCompute mode (v0.4 Compute Binding). "auto" (default) = server for gpu:false nodes with registered kernels; "server" = force server-side; "browser" = always return browser delegation URL. gpu:true nodes always delegate.
parent_hashesNoexecution_hash values from upstream ChainGraph AP2 artifacts to chain from (sets chain.parent_hashes in the export).
parent_tool_idsNotool_id values matching parent_hashes, in the same order.
policy_parametersNoInput parameters for this tool's decision function. For gpu:false nodes with a registered kernel, these are computed server-side when compute is "auto" or "server". See the tool's manifest for field names.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "active_risk_flags": {
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "enisa_control_coverage_pct": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "remediation_checklist": {
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "risk_score": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "risk_tier": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "vendor_incident_history_12mo": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "active_risk_flags": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "enisa_control_coverage_pct": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "remediation_checklist": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "risk_score": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "risk_tier": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "vendor_incident_history_12mo": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: deterministic computation, transient non-stored/non-logged input handling, a 'use synthetic or anonymised inputs only' warning, and the AP2 artifact/execution_hash export. The compute-mode explanation is repeated from the schema, but the data-handling and provenance details are value-add beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose and chain context are front-loaded, which is good, but a large share of the text is ChainGraph runtime boilerplate that duplicates the input schema plus an FV-status paragraph containing a 64-char hash that consumes space without helping tool selection. It is appropriately sized for a complex node but not tight.

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?

Given a no-output-schema compute node with nested policy_parameters, the description supplies chain position, upstream/downstream artifacts, data-handling guarantees, and a pointer to describe_tool for the return shape. The main gap is that the actual policy_parameters fields are never named, leaving the core input opaque.

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 the schema already documents compute, parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids, and policy_parameters. The description marginally reinforces parent_hashes/parent_tool_ids chaining but explicitly defers the key input field names to 'the tool's manifest', adding no detail over the schema. 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (a deterministic scorer for NIS2 ICT supply-chain diligence under Art. 21(2)(d)/ENISA) and situates it as an OpenChainGraph compute node. It is identifiable, though the domain framing is diluted by infrastructure boilerplate about compute bindings and FV-status receipts rather than what the score actually measures.

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 chain-positioning lines ('consumes upstream from art-144-nis2-incident-significance-scorer', 'output feeds art-146...') give real routing context for when this node fits in a pipeline. However, it never contrasts itself with close siblings such as check_nis2_art21_measures, check_nis2_governance_readiness, or score_nis2_incident_significance, so an agent must infer the choice.

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

All AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite toolsInspect
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