Skip to main content
Glama

bidda-compliance

by com.bidda

get_audit_pack

Read-only

Export a run as a governance evidence pack: the signed receipt, every entry, a roll-up of the nodes consulted (with pinned versions/hashes), an independent hash-chain + Merkle integrity self-check, and a coversheet mapping the receipt to the record-keeping obligations it supports (EU AI Act Art. 12/26, ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF). A sealed run is readable by id; a still-open run's draft pack needs your api_key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idYesThe run to export.
api_keyNoOptional: your Bidda key, required for a still-open (unsealed) run.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral nuance: open runs produce a 'draft pack' and require api_key, and the pack includes hash-chain integrity checks. No contradictions with annotations.

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: first states purpose and contents, second clarifies sealed/open behavior. All content earns its place, 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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates the pack's components and the sealed/open condition, though it doesn't specify the output format (e.g., zip/PDF/JSON). Sibling context suggests this is a specialized export tool.

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%, with both run_id and api_key described; the description's sealed/open context duplicates the schema's api_key note, adding no new parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Export' with resource 'run', and enumerates the pack's contents (signed receipt, entries, node roll-up, hash-chain/Merkle check, coversheet), clearly distinguishing it from sibling get_run by its governance-evidence-pack scope.

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?

It specifies the conditional context: sealed runs are readable by id, open runs require api_key. This gives clear operational guidance, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_run for simpler retrieval.

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