Return the cross-framework mapping dimensions for a node: which other regulations, standards, or jurisdictions this rule maps to (e.g. GDPR Article 17 → CCPA right-to-delete → POPIA Section 24). Discovery returns the available dimensions; full mapping values are vault-gated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes | Node ID to inspect crosswalks for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: it distinguishes between discovery (available dimensions) and full mapping values (vault-gated). This informs the agent about access restrictions and output scope without contradicting the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose with an illustrative example; the second adds a crucial limitation. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers what it returns (mapping dimensions), includes an example, and notes access gating. It lacks an explicit output schema but the description sufficiently sets expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage for node_id, with a clear description. The tool description provides an example using a node but does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: returning cross-framework mapping dimensions for a node, with a concrete example (GDPR → CCPA → POPIA). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_mitre_mapping by covering diverse regulations, standards, and jurisdictions, not just MITRE.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you need to discover cross-framework mapping dimensions. It adds context that discovery returns dimensions while full values are vault-gated, which clarifies expected results, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.