Skip to main content
Glama

bidda-compliance

by com.bidda

get_jurisdiction_bundle

Read-only

Return all compliance nodes that apply in a specific jurisdiction (EU, US, UK, Australia, Singapore, India, Canada, China, South Africa, Japan, Brazil and others). Use when an agent enters a new market and needs the full regulatory surface for that geography.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax nodes to return. Default 25. Max 100.
jurisdictionYesJurisdiction code or name: eu, us, uk, au, sg, india, canada, china, south-africa, japan, brazil.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description claims 'Return all compliance nodes', but the input schema includes a 'limit' parameter with a default of 25 and maximum of 100, meaning the tool does not actually return all nodes by default. This is a significant behavioral misrepresentation. Annotations cover read-only and open-world aspects, but the description itself is misleading about the result set size.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. It is concise and well-structured without any fluff.

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?

Despite having good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is incomplete and misleading due to the 'all' claim conflicting with the limit parameter. It does not clarify that results may be truncated or how pagination works, which is essential for a tool that purports to return an entire regulatory surface.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides for the jurisdiction parameter, and it completely ignores the 'limit' parameter, which is key to understanding the actual behavior. However, it does not need to repeat schema details, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns all compliance nodes for a jurisdiction, uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('compliance nodes'), and lists many jurisdictions. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like compare_jurisdictions, which focuses on comparing rather than returning a bundle.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use when an agent enters a new market and needs the full regulatory surface for that geography.' This gives context but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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