Skip to main content
Glama

Compliance coverage across the footprint

get_compliance_coverage
Read-only

Answers 'which NetActuate locations are SOC 2 / HIPAA / ISO 27001 certified' across the whole footprint, and 'is NetActuate itself SOC 2 certified'. With no argument it returns netactuateCertifications, NetActuate's own as netactuate.com/compliance lists them, and every certification its facilities publish with how many sites hold each. With a certification it lists the sites whose facility holds it, each with publishedAs: the site's own wording of the certificate, as evidence, and says whether NetActuate itself holds it. A facility's certification is not NetActuate's own. Names are normalised, because the website writes some standards several ways. Use it for regulated-workload placement; to combine a certification with a region or country, use list_data_centers' certification filter instead.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_compliance_coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
certificationNoCertification to filter by, e.g. 'HIPAA', 'SOC 2 Type II', 'ISO 27001'. Naming several ('HIPAA and SOC 2') lists sites holding all of them; use 'or' for any of them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / certification / description
      Previous value: -"Certification to filter by, e.g. 'HIPAA', 'SOC 2 Type II', 'ISO 27001', 'PCI-DSS'. Naming several ('HIPAA and PCI-DSS') lists sites holding all of them; use 'or' for any of them."New value: +"Certification to filter by, e.g. 'HIPAA', 'SOC 2 Type II', 'ISO 27001'. Naming several ('HIPAA and SOC 2') lists sites holding all of them; use 'or' for any of them."
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so well: it names the response contents (netactuateCertifications, per-certification site counts, publishedAs evidence wording), notes name normalisation, and warns that a facility's certification is not NetActuate's own. This is real behavioral context beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the core question, then the no-argument and with-argument branches, then the caveat and alternative. Dense and mostly earns its length, though the paragraph is long and slightly run-on compared to a bulleted structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Single optional parameter documented at full coverage, no output schema but the return contents are described in detail, and the facility-vs-company distinction is called out. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 the schema's own description already documents the AND/OR semantics of the certification parameter. The description adds only the normalisation note and the 'with/without argument' branching, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific question it answers ('which locations are SOC 2 / HIPAA / ISO 27001 certified' and 'is NetActuate itself certified'), covering both the per-site and company-level views. This is clearly distinguishable from get_data_center and list_data_centers, and an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the use case ('regulated-workload placement') and routes to the alternative ('to combine a certification with a region or country, use list_data_centers' certification filter instead'). Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources