Skip to main content
Glama

bidda-compliance

by com.bidda

record_run_entry

Append one entry to an open run: which Bidda rules the agent consulted, what it decided, and the end user's input (as text via note, or privately as input_hash). Each entry is hash-chained to the previous one. Requires an active Bidda subscription: pass api_key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoOptional: the end user's message as text.
modelNoOptional: the model id/version that produced this decision (e.g. gpt-4o-2024-08-06).
nodesNoOptional node_ids the agent consulted (max 50).
actionNoOptional: an action the agent took or checked.
run_idYesThe run_id returned by open_run.
api_keyNoOptional. Your Bidda subscription key. Prefer sending it as the x-bidda-api-key header (or Authorization: Bearer), which is what the auth settings in your MCP client configure; the header takes precedence over this argument. A free trial counts.
decisionNoOptional: what the agent decided or did this turn.
entry_typeNoOptional: node_consulted | action_checked | decision | note. Defaults to note.
input_hashNoOptional: a sha256:... hash of the user's message instead of the text.
output_hashNoOptional: a sha256:... hash of the agent's output.
subject_hashNoOptional: a sha256:... hash of an end-user identifier for per-subject traceability. Hash only, never plaintext.
verify_nodesNoOptional: pin each node in "nodes" to its current version + integrity hash (proof, not just a claim). No extra call charge.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: each entry is hash-chained to the previous one, and an active subscription/api_key is required. It does not spell out permanence or failure modes, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 three-sentence description is compact, front-loaded with the core operation, and includes only high-signal details. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given full schema coverage for all 12 parameters, the description provides enough workflow context: when to use it, what kind of content to record, how integrity works, and the auth requirement. Nothing essential for an agent to select or invoke the tool is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable selection semantics by grouping parameters: consulted nodes, decisions/actions, and user input via note vs input_hash. This helps an agent pick among the many optional fields.

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?

Starts with a clear verb and resource ('Append one entry to an open run') and immediately distinguishes this tool from lifecycle siblings like open_run, get_run, and seal_run. The content scope is also clear: consulted rules, decisions, and user input.

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?

Provides clear contextual guidance: use it only on an open run and only with an active Bidda subscription. It does not explicitly name alternatives or warn about sealed runs, but the 'open run' framing implies the boundary.

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