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?
The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool returns a summary (title, compliance pillar, version, last updated, BLUF) and that the full node is accessible at bidda.com. While readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already indicate safety and open nature, the description clarifies the output content and external reference, enhancing behavioral transparency.
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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the key action, then enumerates the summary fields, and finally points to the full node location. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy or extraneous details.
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?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return summary and directs users for full details. It does not mention error handling or when a node might not be found, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it is sufficiently complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the 'id' parameter fully described including examples. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only confirming that the ID refers to a node. Since the schema handles parameter semantics, a baseline score 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 'Get a specific compliance node by its ID' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_nodes by emphasizing 'specific node' and 'by ID', making the purpose unambiguous.
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 context is implied: use this when you have a node ID and want a summary. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided, such as directing users to search_nodes for finding IDs or browse_topics for exploration. The 'by its ID' gives some hint but lacks explicit comparison.
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.