Get a specific compliance node by its ID. Returns the node summary: title, compliance pillar, version, last updated, and BLUF. The full node (machine-executable deterministic workflow, actionable schema, primary legal citations, dependency chain) is available at bidda.com.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Node ID, e.g. "basel-iii-capital", "gdpr-article-5-principles", "fatf-40-recommendations-2023-consolidated", "us-hipaa-privacy-rule" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is already known. The description adds value by disclosing the exact summary fields returned (title, pillar, version, last updated, BLUF) and pointing out that the full node (with workflow, schema, citations) is not provided. No contradiction 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every clause contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the return value contains and what it does not. It sets expectations about the summary and directs users to an external source for the full node, covering all necessary contextual aspects.
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 input schema fully describes the required 'id' parameter with examples and a clear description. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond restating 'by its ID'. With 100% schema coverage, 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: 'Get a specific compliance node by its ID.' It specifies the verb (get), the resource (compliance node), and the scope (specific, by ID). It also lists the returned summary fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_dependency_chain or search_nodes.
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 provides clear context: use this tool when you have a node ID and need a summary. It explicitly states what the tool returns and notes that the full node is available elsewhere, implying a when-not scenario. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools for cases like finding a node without an ID.
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.