Skip to main content
Glama

Bidda Sovereign Intelligence

by com.bidda

gap_check

Read-only

Given the compliance rules a team says it covers, return the prerequisite rules Bidda's dependency graph links to them that were NOT listed - the 'you missed the prerequisite obligation' gaps - plus any covered rule the registry marks withdrawn. A coverage aid for a qualified reviewer; it does not rank or determine compliance. Requires an active Bidda subscription: pass api_key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoOptional: how many dependency hops to walk (1-3, default 1).
nodesYesThe node_ids you cover (max 200).
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.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the subscription requirement, the dependency-graph mechanism, and explicitly notes it does not rank compliance. It does not contradict annotations and supplies context beyond the structured metadata.

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 paragraph with two efficient sentences. The core function is front-loaded, and the 'coverage aid' phrasing with a dash adds a bit of fluff but does not waste space. It is concise and readable.

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With no output schema, the description does explain the high-level output (gaps and withdrawn rules). It states the auth requirement and what the tool does not do. For a read-only tool with well-documented params, this is sufficiently complete, though return structure detail is absent.

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%, with each parameter (depth, nodes, api_key) already explained. The description adds no deeper meaning about parameter syntax or relationships; it only mentions passing api_key, which the schema already covers. 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 uses a specific verb ('return') with a clear resource (prerequisite rules from the dependency graph) and explicitly defines the two outputs: missed prerequisite gaps and withdrawn covered rules. It also distinguishes itself from ranking/determining compliance, separating it from other review tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It frames the tool as 'a coverage aid for a qualified reviewer' and states it does not rank or determine compliance, giving some context. However, it does not name specific sibling tools or provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, leaving inference to the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Bidda Sovereign Intelligence 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes. The few overlapping pairs (get_node vs consult_node, get_latest_changes vs obligation_deltas) are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions, so an agent should be able to select correctly. No tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency3/5

The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (get_node, create_attestation, seal_run). However, several tools deviate significantly: drift_check and gap_check put the noun first, obligation_deltas is a bare noun, and point_in_time and oscal_assessment_results are noun phrases without a verb. This inconsistency makes the set feel less predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, this is at the heavy end of the range. However, the tool set covers a very broad compliance intelligence domain, including discovery, compliance checks, run management, attestations, and change feeds. Each tool has a clear role, but the sheer number may overwhelm agents that need only a subset of functionality.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is very comprehensive for a compliance intelligence platform. It covers discovery (browse, search, list, get), action compliance checking, jurisdiction comparison, dependency analysis, change tracking, run ledger management, attestation creation, and evidence export. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations for the stated domain.

Resources