Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

disclosedby, the subprocessor record

by com.disclosedby
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check your vendors: the first step

check

Given the companies a reader buys from, which of their own published lists name one company, or a company headquartered in a country, on their latest version: in the list's own words, with when it was first seen here and the day the list was checked. Past the first step it answers in counts only: how many of the companies lead there through a company they name, and how many steps held here have ended. The same answer as the check on disclosedby.com. Which company is in between, and since when each step held, is in_chain. Names that matched nothing come back beside the answer. It says who to ask, never who is harmed. Free to read, cite and link. Every row is a dated quote of a company's own published page: cite the page and the read date. The compilation is protected: extraction or re-use of a substantial part is not permitted, and it may never be compiled into a lead list, a prospecting feed or a sales tool. A key is one reader's own use.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "companies": "<companies>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesThe company to look for, or a country by name or code.
companiesYesThe companies the reader buys from, by domain or name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a lot beyond structured fields: results are dated quotes of a company's own published page, unmatched names are returned alongside the answer, deeper traversal collapses to counts only, and usage is constrained (free to read/cite/link, no extraction, never a lead list) with "a key is one reader's own use" hinting at auth. It stops short of error behavior, pagination, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is mostly load-bearing, but the opening sentence is a sprawling clause chain that takes several reads to parse, and licensing/ethical statements are interleaved with functional behavior rather than separated. It is front-loaded with the core operation, but readability suffers.

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?

For a 2-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what comes back (quoted lines, first-seen date, check date, counts, unmatched names), the relationship to `in_chain`, and licensing limits. Remaining gaps — response shape detail, auth mechanics, pagination — are modest for this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented, including that `target` may be a company or a country and that `companies` takes domains or names up to 200. The description adds only framing ("the companies a reader buys from"), not syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete operation: given the companies a reader buys from, find which of their published lists name a target company or a company headquartered in a target country, returning quoted lines with first-seen and checked dates. It also distinguishes itself from `in_chain` ("Which company is in between... is `in_chain`"). The phrasing is dense and buried in a long first sentence, but the verb and resource are identifiable.

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?

The title calls this "the first step" and the text routes one follow-up to `in_chain` for intermediate companies, which gives some when-to-use signal. However, nothing explains when to use this versus `named_by`, `as_of`, `changes`, `list` or `resolve`, and the behavior "past the first step it answers in counts only" is stated as a fact rather than as guidance about when that limitation matters.

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

All disclosedby, the subprocessor record toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources