Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers

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/8b5ae30d812cd234cfb6068c4ce2022f01d10f2a358979b0f0d73421e09d2543.json — a snapshot, not a subscription; this receipt verifies offline regardless of whether that file is ever fetched.

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.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses deterministic execution, server-side versus browser delegation, transient input processing, no persistence/logging/retention, and exporter-of-an-execution-hash artifact. This is substantial behavioral context an agent genuinely needs.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is long and somewhat redundant, repeating "OpenChainGraph compute node" and including URLs, FV-status paths, and extensive provenance details that are not essential for invocation. It front-loads core compute behavior but would benefit from cutting the chain metadata and content into the manifest/schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description lacks any documentation of the actual policy fields, score semantics, output format, or expected outcome. It says "See the tool's manifest" for policy_parameters but no manifest is provided, and no output schema is present, so it cannot be fully completed from this definition alone.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides the baseline parameter descriptions. The description complements the compute binding logic and references the manifest for policy_parameters, but it does not add meaningful field-level detail that is not already in the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as an NIS2 ICT supply-chain diligence scorer and locates its role in an OpenChainGraph chain with upstream and downstream artifacts. It does not explicitly state a verb like "calculates a NIS2 supply-chain score," but the title and chain context leave little room for ambiguity.

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 description provides useful pipeline context by naming consumed upstream artifacts and downstream consumers of its output, and it says to use only synthetic/anonymized inputs. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like check_nis2_art21_measures or score_nis2_incident_significance, so when selection must be inferred.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Nearly every tool is an 'OpenChainGraph compute node' with identical boilerplate, and dozens of assess/check/validate/verify/lint/recompute verbs overlap heavily in purpose. An agent cannot reliably tell which of many similarly scoped tools should handle a given compliance or analytics question.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most names are snake_case, so there is superficial consistency, but the verb vocabulary is enormous and unpredictable, mixing build/compute/check/validate/verify/lint/assess/classify/score/reconcile and more. Several noun-first names such as pain001_validate, recon_match, and ha_record_validate further break the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

695 tools is far beyond any practical agent-facing surface, exceeding even the extreme end of the calibration range. This is a full product catalog dumped into one MCP server rather than a curated, usable tool set.

Completeness3/5

The suite covers an extremely wide range of fintech and regulatory calculators, validators, chain tools, and discovery utilities, so coverage is broad rather than thin. However, the lack of a clear domain boundary makes completeness nearly impossible to assess, and the heavy overlap suggests the surface was generated rather than intentionally designed.

Resources