Return the cross-framework mapping dimensions for a node: which other regulations, standards, or jurisdictions this rule maps to (e.g. GDPR Article 17 → CCPA right-to-delete → POPIA Section 24). Discovery returns the available dimensions; full mapping values are vault-gated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes | Node ID to inspect crosswalks for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that discovery returns available dimensions while full mapping values are vault-gated, which tells the agent about a two-tier access model not captured in 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 with front-loaded action, includes a clarifying example, and ends with a concise note on access levels. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 simple schema (one parameter) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the return value ('mapping dimensions') with an example and notes the vault-gating nuance. It is complete enough for a look-up tool, though a brief mention of output format would have made it fully concrete.
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 already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of node_id ('Node ID to inspect crosswalks for'). The description's mention of 'for a node' adds no significant semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Return the cross-framework mapping dimensions for a node') and includes a concrete example chain. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_mitre_mapping by focusing on cross-framework mappings across regulations, standards, and jurisdictions.
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 implies its use case when cross-framework mappings are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks exclusions or direct comparisons with sibling tools such as get_mitre_mapping or compare_jurisdictions, so guidance is only implied.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.