Skip to main content
Glama

bidda-compliance

by com.bidda

consult_node

The one-call governed turn: fetch the full vault node (this consumes one call on your key, exactly like unlocking a node) AND record a verified node_consulted entry for it on an open run, in a single step. The entry pins the node to its current version + integrity hash, so the run receipt proves what the agent actually consulted. Use this instead of get_node when you are inside a run. Requires an active Bidda subscription: pass api_key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNoOptional: the model id/version making the decision.
actionNoOptional: an action the agent took or checked.
run_idYesThe open run to record into (from open_run).
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.
node_idYesThe rule to fetch and record.
decisionNoOptional: what the agent decided using this node.
input_hashNoOptional: a sha256:... hash of the user's message instead of the text.
user_inputNoOptional: the end user's message as text.
subject_hashNoOptional: a sha256:... hash of an end-user identifier. Hash only.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds valuable context: the call consumes one key credit, records a verified entry, pins the node to its version and integrity hash, and requires a subscription. This goes beyond the annotation fields without contradicting them.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is information-dense and front-loaded with the core behavior, then adds the key distinguishing guidance and subscription requirement. It is longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence serves a purpose and there is no filler.

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 composite operation with no output schema, the description covers the operation's effect, the verification semantics, and the prerequisite. It does not describe the return value or failure modes, but that gap is minor given all parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema.

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 all nine parameters. The description adds modest extra meaning around api_key (required in practice though schema-optional, with header precedence) and clarifies that node_id is 'the rule to fetch and record,' but it does not deeply enrich most parameters.

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 names a specific composite verb+resource: fetch the full vault node AND record a verified node_consulted entry, all in a single step. It explicitly contrasts with get_node and record_run_entry, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from its most similar siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use this instead of get_node when you are inside a run.' It also states the requirement of an active Bidda subscription and an open run, leaving little ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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