Skip to main content
Glama

bidda-compliance

by com.bidda

oscal_assessment_results

Read-only

Export a governed run's evidence as a NIST OSCAL assessment-results document (the machine-readable format GRC and audit tooling consumes): reviewed-controls (the obligation nodes consulted), observations (each pinned to its version + integrity hash), and props recording the independent integrity self-check. A sealed run is readable by id; a still-open run needs your api_key.

Input Schema

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

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value beyond these by disclosing that api_key is required for still-open runs, and by outlining the document composition (reviewed-controls, observations, props). No contradictions.

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 a single, dense sentence with a colon-separated list. All content is relevant, though the parentheticals and clause 'the machine-readable format...' add length. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key sections of the exported document. It also covers access requirements (api_key for open runs). This is sufficient for an export tool of moderate complexity.

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 already described in the schema. The description essentially restates these (sealed vs. open run) without adding new parameter-level detail, so it neither compensates nor detracts; baseline 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 verb ('Export'), the resource ('a governed run's evidence'), and the format ('NIST OSCAL assessment-results document'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying the machine-readable compliance format, making it unambiguous.

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 clear context: this is for producing OSCAL assessment-results for GRC/audit tooling. It also gives a practical condition (sealed vs. open runs) that affects api_key usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it.

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