ComplianceAutomator Public MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the post is 'public' (accessibility) and that the return is a 'summary' (output type), but it does not mention side effects, error behavior, or authentication requirements. Some behavioral context is present, but not comprehensive.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Get') and immediately conveys the resource and method, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and method. It could mention what happens if the slug does not exist or what the summary includes, but the simplicity of the tool makes this largely adequate.

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 documents the slug parameter with 100% coverage ('Blog slug.'). The description's 'by slug' adds no new meaning about the parameter itself; the terms 'public' and 'summary' relate to the overall tool's purpose, not the slug semantics.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'public blog post summary' retrieved 'by slug.' This distinguishes it from siblings like list_blog_posts (plural, listing) and get_guide (different resource).

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?

No explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The focus on a single summary by slug implies it is for retrieving one post rather than listing all, but alternative tools are not mentioned and no exclusions are stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds context like 'public' (no auth expected) and 'summary' (not full content), but it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., unknown slug), return format, or any side effects. This is a minimal but honest disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and parameter. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or ambiguity.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it clarifies the resource is a 'summary' and that the input is a 'slug'. However, without an output schema, the agent does not know the exact shape of the summary, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 100% (slug is described with an example). The description simply repeats 'by slug' without adding new meaning. Per calibration, baseline is 3 when the schema already documents parameters, and the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('public compliance guide summary'), and the lookup mechanism ('by slug'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_guides (list vs. get) and get_blog_post (different resource type).

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 provides clear context: use when you have a specific slug and want a public compliance guide summary. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over list_guides for a single-guide fetch.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the return value and mentions 'public', but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, side-effect-free, or caveat-free. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, concise sentence of ten words, front-loading the key verb and object. There is no filler or repetition, every word contributes value.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete, covering what the tool returns. It could slightly expand on behavioral guarantees, but the information provided is sufficient for a basic read-only tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter detail to add. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids extraneous parameter context.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Return') and resource ('public summary of how ComplianceAutomator works'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_blog_post or get_guide by focusing on the product's internal workings rather than a specific content type.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the output, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context. No exclusions or comparisons are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states 'public summary' which implies a safe read operation, but it does not explicitly mention read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or response format. This is a minimal but acceptable disclosure for a simple getter.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the core action and resource. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately indicates the output is a summary, but it lacks detail on the content or structure of that summary. It is sufficient for basic invocation but not fully descriptive.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 the tool returns a public summary of ComplianceAutomator methodology, using a specific resource and verb. It distinguishes from sibling getters like blog posts and guides, though 'methodology' could overlap with 'how it works'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_how_it_works or list_frameworks. The description gives no context for selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds a meaningful behavioral qualifier: 'public', indicating the tool only returns public products and likely requires no special auth. This is useful beyond the schema. It does not describe return details or error behavior, but for a simple get operation, it's sufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description is nearly complete: it names the resource and parameter, and implies the return value (the product). It could mention what happens if the product is not found or is private, but this is not essential for a basic getter.

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 complete coverage (100%) for productId with a concrete example ('soc2-starter-pack'). The description merely restates 'by product id' without adding additional parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so it lands at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('public product'), and the required parameter ('by product id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_blog_post or list_products.

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 usage: when you have a product id and need a single public product. It does not explicitly contrast with list_products or mention when not to use it, but it is fairly clear. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative, so it meets only the baseline.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'published' scopes the results, but the description does not disclose pagination, ordering, response format, or whether unpublished/draft posts are excluded. This is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 a single sentence, 'List published blog posts.', with zero wasted words. The verb is front-loaded and the sentence is efficient, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description states the core purpose but leaves out return-value details, ordering behavior, and usage context relative to siblings. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in contextual guidance.

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 documents the only parameter (limit) with 100% coverage, so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning about limit, so the baseline of 3 applies where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List published blog posts.' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('published blog posts'), which clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools by resource type (list_frameworks, list_guides, list_products) and from get_blog_post, which retrieves a single post.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_blog_post or other list_* tools. The description does not provide context, exclusions, or explicit recommendations, leaving usage to be inferred solely from the name.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It indicates a read-only action via the verb 'list' but does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as authentication requirements or return format. It avoids contradiction but leaves some gaps.

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 a single, concise sentence with no superfluous words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it lists supported compliance frameworks and related products. This is complete for the tool's function, though the phrase 'related products' is a bit vague.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description needs no parameter semantics. Baseline of 4 per rubric; no additional information required.

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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'supported compliance frameworks and related products.' This distinguishes it from sibling list tools for blog posts, guides, and products.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling list tools. It simply states what it does without contextual cues like 'use for compliance frameworks' or exclusions for other categories.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that guides are 'public' and sourced from the resource library, offering some transparency about access scope, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor describe pagination, ordering, or error behavior. It is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence ('List public compliance guides from the resource library') with no unnecessary words or repetition. It maximally conveys the tool's purpose in minimal space.

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 listing tool with only optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information about what the tool does and its source. It does not describe return field details, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of annotations, the description is reasonably complete for selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both 'limit' and 'framework' parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, placing it at the baseline for high coverage.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource type ('public compliance guides'), and the source ('resource library'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_guide and list_frameworks.

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 usage for browsing compliance guides but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_guide or list_frameworks. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned, so context is inferred rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that only 'public' products are included and that the response includes framework coverage, which adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention other behavioral traits like response format or any filtering limitations.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and immediately states the resource and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler or unnecessary detail.

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 low complexity (no params, no output schema, simple list operation), the description is largely complete. It covers what is listed and a key aspect of the output ('framework coverage'). However, it could be more helpful by pointing to get_product for detailed product info or list_frameworks for framework-specific listings, but this is not strictly required for a basic list tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but with no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 is appropriate. It does mention 'framework coverage' which hints at the output structure, though not a parameter.

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 the action (List), the resource (public ComplianceAutomator products), and the specific output detail (framework coverage). This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from siblings like list_frameworks (which would list frameworks) and get_product (which likely returns a single product).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_frameworks or get_product. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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