compliance-radar
Server Details
US small-biz & foreign-LLC filing deadlines: FinCEN BOI, IRS 5472, franchise tax, 1099 (sourced).
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.7/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: building a checklist, creating a deadline tracker, getting obligation details, and listing obligations. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: build_checklist, create_deadline_tracker, get_obligation, list_obligations.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of listing and managing compliance obligations, covering key actions without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers the main workflows: listing obligations, getting details, building a personalized checklist, and creating a tracker. Minor gaps like update/delete for the tracker are not critical.
Available Tools
4 toolsbuild_checklistAInspect
Build a personalized list of likely recurring compliance obligations and their NEXT deadline dates from an entity profile (entity type + state + formation date + a few flags). Pure date arithmetic over officially-cited rules — NOT individualized legal or tax advice. Always verify against the cited sources and a licensed professional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | 2-letter formation/registration state, e.g. 'DE'. | |
| entityType | Yes | ||
| foreignOwned | No | True if owned (>=25% or wholly) by a non-US person. | |
| hasEmployees | No | ||
| formationDate | No | Entity formation date YYYY-MM-DD (drives anniversary-based deadlines). | |
| paysContractors | No | True if you pay $600+ to US contractors (1099 obligations). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'pure date arithmetic' and that it's not advice, but lacks details on side effects, performance, or data access patterns.
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 paragraph with two sentences: first states purpose, second adds nuance. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence adds 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 no output schema, the description should explain the return format. It mentions 'list' and 'next deadline dates' but doesn't specify structure. The complexity of 6 params and absence of output details leaves some gaps.
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 67%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions key parameters (entity type, state, formation date, flags) but doesn't add detailed semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 builds a personalized list of compliance obligations with next deadlines, specifying inputs like entity type, state, and formation date. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on personalized checklist vs. generic list or tracker.
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 includes a disclaimer that the output is not legal advice and must be verified, providing usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_deadline_trackerCInspect
Save an entity profile plus an email and/or webhook URL to receive FREE recurring reminders before each upcoming compliance deadline. Returns a manage id. INFORMATIONAL reminders only — not legal or tax advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Where to send reminders (email or webhook required). | ||
| state | No | ||
| webhook | No | POST target for reminder JSON (email or webhook required). | |
| entityType | No | ||
| remindDays | No | Days of lead time before a deadline to remind (default 30, 1-120). | |
| foreignOwned | No | ||
| hasEmployees | No | ||
| formationDate | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| paysContractors | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states reminders are free, informational, and returns a manage id, but lacks details on idempotency, rate limits, or data mutations. For a creation tool, this is minimal.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff. However, the first sentence is slightly long. Efficient for the information provided.
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?
With 9 parameters (0 required), no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete. An agent would lack clarity on what to expect as output and how parameters relate.
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 only 44% (4 of 9 parameters described). The description mentions email and webhook but not other parameters like state, entityType, etc. It adds little value beyond the schema.
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 it saves an entity profile and URL for compliance deadline reminders. It distinguishes from sibling tools (checklists/obligations), though 'Save an entity profile' could be more specific.
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 on when to use this tool vs. siblings (build_checklist, get_obligation, list_obligations) or when not to use it. The description implies setup but lacks context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_obligationAInspect
Return full detail for a single obligation by id: what it is, who must file, the deadline, the penalty for missing it, and a link to the OFFICIAL government source with a dated 'verified as of'. INFORMATIONAL ONLY — not legal or tax advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Obligation id, e.g. 'fincen-boi', 'irs-5472', 'de-franchise-llc'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses 'INFORMATIONAL ONLY — not legal or tax advice' and mentions a dated link to official source, indicating read-only and informational nature. Lacks explicit statement about no mutations, but overall transparent.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with key purpose. No wasted words; every phrase adds value (return content, disclaimer, source link).
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return content, source, and legal disclaimer. Siblings are distinct in function, so no additional context needed.
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% with example values. Tool description adds context about what the ID represents but does not go beyond schema detail. Baseline 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 the tool returns full detail for a single obligation by ID, listing specific content (what, who, deadline, penalty, link). It distinguishes from siblings like list_obligations which lists multiple obligations.
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?
Context implies use when needing detailed info for a known obligation ID, versus list_obligations for browsing. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names, but the description provides clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_obligationsAInspect
List recurring US compliance / tax-filing obligations that commonly blindside small businesses and foreign-owned US LLCs (FinCEN BOI, IRS Form 5472, Delaware/WY/NV/CA franchise tax & annual reports, 1099 deadlines, etc.). Each item cites its official IRS/FinCEN/state source with the date it was last verified. INFORMATIONAL ONLY — not legal or tax advice. Optionally filter by entity type and/or 2-letter state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | 2-letter US state (e.g. 'DE'). Filters state-specific obligations + always-included federal ones. | |
| entityType | No | Filter to obligations that can apply to this entity type. | |
| foreignOwned | No | Include foreign-owned-only obligations (e.g. Form 5472). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses 'INFORMATIONAL ONLY — not legal or tax advice' and cites official sources with verification dates. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; misses update frequency but is otherwise transparent.
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?
Three concise sentences: first describes content, second adds source and disclaimer, third mentions filtering. No fluff; front-loaded with key info.
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?
Despite detailed listing content, description lacks output format or structure of returned obligations. With no output schema, agent cannot predict return shape; reduces completeness.
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?
Parameter descriptions in schema cover 100%; description adds minimal context (e.g., 'Filters state-specific obligations + always-included federal ones'). Does not significantly enhance schema information.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists recurring US compliance obligations with specific examples (FinCEN BOI, IRS Form 5472, state franchise tax). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing vs. building checklists or tracking deadlines.
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?
Explicitly says 'Optionally filter by entity type and/or 2-letter state,' providing context for use. Implicitly distinguishes from siblings (list vs. get_obligation) but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!