Skip to main content
Glama

bidda-compliance

by com.bidda

compare_jurisdictions

Read-only

Compare how different jurisdictions address a compliance topic, side by side, including where their numeric thresholds differ (for example a breach-notification deadline of 72 hours versus 30 days). It surfaces the real rules and numbers and does not rank which jurisdiction is stricter. Requires an active Bidda subscription: pass your key as api_key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicYesTopic to compare, for example "data breach notification".
api_keyNoOptional. Your Bidda subscription key. Prefer sending it as the x-bidda-api-key header (or Authorization: Bearer), which is what the auth settings in your MCP client configure; the header takes precedence over this argument. A free trial counts.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it surfaces actual rules and numbers, does not rank jurisdictions, and requires an authenticated subscription. These are not inferable from the annotations alone and materially affect agent expectations.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with no fluff. It front-loaded the core purpose, states a useful boundary behavior, and closes with the authentication requirement. Every sentence contributes new, actionable information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter read-only tool, this description is complete enough: it covers purpose, behavior, non-ranking semantics, required context, and expected input style. The absence of an output schema does not hurt because the description adequately signals what the tool surfaces ('real rules and numbers'). An agent can select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds practical semantic value by providing a concrete example topic and clarifying that a free trial key is valid, while the api_key parameter is already thoroughly described in the schema. This justifies the higher side of the baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: compare jurisdictions on a compliance topic side by side, including numeric threshold differences. It also explicitly says it does not rank which jurisdiction is stricter, which clarifies its purpose and distinguishes it from evaluative alternatives. This is clear and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly conveys the intended use case: side-by-side jurisdictional comparison of compliance rules and thresholds. It also provides a critical prerequisite: an active Bidda subscription and API key. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusivity guidance.

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

All bidda-compliance 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct functions: discovery, analysis, runs, attestation, and change feeds. However, get_latest_changes, obligation_deltas, and watch_changes all relate to regulatory changes and could be confused, as could get_node vs consult_node. Descriptions clarify, but boundaries are not always obvious.

Naming Consistency3/5

The majority follow a verb_noun pattern (browse_topics, create_attestation, get_node), but there are deviations like drift_check, gap_check, obligation_deltas, oscal_assessment_results, and point_in_time, which break the convention. Mixed patterns make the API less predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 25 tools, the server is at the heavy end of the borderline range. Some tools (e.g., get_latest_changes vs obligation_deltas, get_run vs get_audit_pack) have overlapping functionality that could be consolidated, though the broad compliance domain justifies a larger surface.

Completeness3/5

The server covers discovery, analysis, run ledgers, attestation, and exports, but lacks a standalone way to access full node content outside a run (get_node returns only summaries; full nodes are external). This is a notable gap for compliance work. Also, there's no list of jurisdictions or verification tool for attestations, though these may be outside the server's intent.

Resources