Research 723 compliance frameworks, then find the course that helps a buyer act on them.
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.
Average 3.8/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., agent_get_control vs. agent_get_framework, agent_search_courses vs. agent_search_frameworks). However, agent_courses_for_frameworks and agent_search_courses with a framework filter could overlap in intent, causing potential confusion. The descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.
All tools follow a consistent agent_verb_noun pattern (e.g., agent_get_control, agent_search_frameworks, agent_list_course_frameworks). This makes the tool set highly predictable and easy for an agent to navigate.
With 14 tools covering framework search, control details, cross-framework mappings, course search, and platform stats, the count is appropriate for a compliance intelligence server. It's slightly on the higher end but still well-scoped without unnecessary bulk.
The tool set covers core compliance needs: searching frameworks, retrieving controls, cross-referencing mappings, and finding courses. Minor gaps exist, such as no tools for creating or updating mappings or managing user-specific data, but these are likely out of scope for a read-heavy knowledge graph server.
agent_courses_for_frameworksAInspectFind courses covering several standards at once
Given two or more standards, returns courses that address ALL of them together, which is what an organisation running overlapping programmes actually needs.
Example: frameworks='SOC 2,ISO 27001' returns courses on running both from one evidence set, rather than one course per standard.
Falls back to reporting which standards have coverage if no single course spans them all. No authentication required.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| frameworks | Yes | Comma-separated, e.g. 'SOC 2,ISO 27001' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that no authentication is required, which is a helpful behavioral note. It also explains fallback behavior when no single course spans all standards. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or rate limits. For a read-only search tool, this is adequate, and a 4 is justified given the added context beyond annotations.
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 four sentences long, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. The example is helpful but could be integrated more tightly. Every sentence adds value, though the response section adds minimal new information beyond the schema. Still, it is well-structured and concise.
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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential: what the tool does, how to use it (with example), fallback behavior, and authentication context. It could mention return format more explicitly, but the response 200 hint in the description partially covers that. The tool is relatively simple, so completeness is high.
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 50%, meaning one parameter (frameworks) has a description in the schema. The description compensates by providing an example ('SOC 2,ISO 27001') and explaining the semantics of the frameworks parameter. The limit parameter's default and constraints are already in the schema, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. Overall, the description adds 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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Find courses covering several standards at once' and clearly identifies the resource (courses covering multiple frameworks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agent_search_courses by emphasizing multi-standard coverage for organizations running overlapping programs.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when an organisation running overlapping programmes actually needs' courses addressing ALL standards together) and provides a clear example (frameworks='SOC 2,ISO 27001'). It also explains fallback behavior ('returns courses on running both from one evidence set, rather than one course per standard') and notes that no authentication is required. No explicit exclusion of alternatives, but the context and example guide usage well.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_coverage_reportAInspectGet cross-framework coverage report for a framework
Returns a coverage analysis showing how many controls in the given framework map to controls in every other framework. Includes total controls, mapped control counts, and coverage percentages per target framework. Use this to understand which frameworks overlap most and plan multi-framework strategies.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return content correctly (analysis with counts and percentages) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any potentially expensive computation, pagination, or other behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness. Given zero annotations, this is adequate but leaves some unknowns.
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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for return content, and one for usage guidance. No wasted words, and the most critical information (what it does) is front-loaded. The response format example is unnecessary but does not harm conciseness.
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 is simple (1 required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, output content, and usage goal. The only minor gap is the lack of behavioral details (like whether this is real-time or cached), which is not critical for this kind of analytical report tool. The mention of a 200 response code is helpful but adds no real semantic value beyond that.
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?
With only 1 parameter (name) and 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explicitly clarify the parameter's semantics. However, the tool name and purpose strongly imply the 'name' is a framework identifier, and the context of sibling tools (e.g., agent_get_framework) reinforces this. The description clearly states the required parameter is a framework name, adding enough meaning beyond the bare 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cross-framework coverage report for a framework'), explicitly distinguishing this from siblings like 'agent_get_framework_controls' or 'agent_cross_framework_map'. It details what the report includes (total controls, mapped counts, coverage percentages), leaving no ambiguity about purpose.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to understand which frameworks overlap most and plan multi-framework strategies.' However, it does not mention any alternatives or cases when this tool should not be used (e.g., if a single-framework detail is needed, use agent_get_framework_controls). This is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_cross_framework_mapAInspectMap controls between two compliance frameworks
Returns the complete control-to-control mapping between a source and target framework. Each mapping shows which source control maps to which target control(s). This enables multi-framework compliance: satisfy one control to cover requirements in both frameworks. Use exact framework names as returned by agent_search_frameworks.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | Source framework name (e.g. 'ISO 27001:2022') | |
| target | Yes | Target framework name (e.g. 'NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns mapping data, but does not disclose whether it is a read-only operation, any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The brief 'Responses' section only lists a status code. Behavioral transparency is minimal but not contradictory.
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 core description is three concise sentences that cover purpose, functionality, and parameter usage. The appended 'Responses' section adds little value and could be omitted, but it does not detract significantly overall. The information is front-loaded and each sentence 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?
Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what the tool returns (control-to-control mapping) and how to use it (exact framework names). This is largely sufficient for a simple mapping query. However, it does not describe the response format (e.g., whether it is a list, JSON structure, pagination), which could leave an agent guessing about how to parse results.
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 descriptive parameter names and examples. The description adds value by instructing to use exact framework names from agent_search_frameworks, which provides practical semantic guidance beyond the schema's type and examples. This helps the agent select correct parameter values.
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 verb 'Map controls' and the resource 'between two compliance frameworks'. It explains it returns a control-to-control mapping and enables multi-framework compliance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_get_framework_controls (single framework controls) and agent_coverage_report (coverage, not mapping).
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 explicit guidance to 'Use exact framework names as returned by agent_search_frameworks', which helps with parameter input. It also implies the use case ('enables multi-framework compliance') but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The context is clear, but exclusions are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_get_controlCInspectGet detailed information about a specific control
Returns full details for a single control by its code identifier: title, description, domain, and framework. Control codes are framework-specific (e.g. 'A.5.1' for ISO 27001, 'AC-1' for NIST 800-53).
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a successful 200 response and fails to address error conditions (e.g., invalid code), authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.
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, using a clear title line and a short paragraph. The inclusion of a 'Responses' section adds structure, though it is minimal (only 200). Overall, every sentence contributes value without unnecessary verbosity.
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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and return fields. However, it omits error handling, response format details beyond 'Content-Type: application/json', and any prerequisites. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'code' parameter as a framework-specific identifier with examples ('A.5.1', 'AC-1'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify valid formats, patterns, or how to obtain valid codes, leaving some ambiguity.
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 retrieves detailed information for a single control by its code identifier, listing the fields returned (title, description, domain, framework) and providing examples of framework-specific codes. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_get_framework_controls (which lists multiple controls) by emphasizing a single control lookup, it does not explicitly delineate from all related siblings.
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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agent_get_framework_controls or agent_search. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or any context-dependent recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_get_control_cross_referencesBInspectGet cross-framework mappings for a control
Returns all controls in other frameworks that map to the given control via MAPS_TO relationships. This is the core cross-framework mapping capability: use it to find equivalent controls across different compliance frameworks (e.g. NIST 800-53 equivalents of ISO 27001 controls).
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the relationship type (MAPS_TO) and gives an example, but lacks information on pagination, potential large response size, error conditions (e.g., control not found), and whether the operation is read-only. The basic function is conveyed, but important behavioral details are missing.
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 core description is two sentences and an example, which is concise. However, the 'Responses' section is poorly formatted and adds noise ('200: Successful Response (Success Response)') without providing useful information. This detracts from the overall conciseness.
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 (one parameter, no output schema), and the description explains the mapping concept and use case. However, it lacks explicit parameter documentation, behavioral details (pagination, errors), and does not leverage the sibling list to differentiate. It is minimally complete but has clear 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'code' is the identifier of the control (e.g., from the example 'AC-1'), but it does not explicitly define the parameter's format, expected values, or provide an example. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema but is not fully explicit.
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 'Get cross-framework mappings for a control' and explains it returns controls mapped via MAPS_TO relationships. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'agent_cross_framework_map', which likely has a similar purpose. The example (NIST 800-53 equivalents of ISO 27001) adds concreteness.
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 says 'use it to find equivalent controls across different compliance frameworks' which implies the context of use. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, particularly the sibling 'agent_cross_framework_map'. The usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_get_courseAInspectGet one course
Full detail for a single course by product id, including every standard it covers and its purchase URL. Use after agent_search_courses to justify a recommendation. No authentication required.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the response includes specific fields, the HTTP status (200), and that no auth is needed. However, it omits potential error conditions, rate limits, or data freshness policies, which are relevant for a read operation.
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 short but includes minor redundancy (e.g., 'Get one course' echoes the name) and a blank line. The 'Responses' section adds minimal value. It front-loads the purpose effectively but wastes some 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, parameter usage, ordering relative to search, and response content. Missing error handling details, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 only parameter (product_id) has no schema description, so the description must add meaning. It does say 'by product id' linking the parameter to the resource, but fails to explain what constitutes a valid ID, where to find it, or any constraints beyond being an integer.
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 explicitly states the tool retrieves a single course by product ID, listing included details (standards, purchase URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_get_control or agent_get_framework.
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 advises using this tool after agent_search_courses to justify a recommendation, providing explicit context. It also notes no authentication required. However, it does not list when to avoid the tool or name specific alternatives beyond the suggested sequence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_get_frameworkAInspectGet detailed information about a compliance framework
Returns comprehensive details about a specific compliance framework: description, jurisdiction, version, domains with control counts, and cross-framework mapping statistics. Use the exact framework name as returned by agent_search_frameworks.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and lists the return fields. However, it does not explicitly confirm safety, mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but lacks comprehensive 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—one sentence for purpose, one for guidance, and a brief response note. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource. Minor waste: the response section only mentions a 200 status without expanding on format, but this keeps it lean. Overall well-structured for its length.
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 (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the return content sufficiently—listing the key fields (description, jurisdiction, version, domains, mapping stats). It does not address error cases or edge conditions, but for a get-by-name tool this is reasonably 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?
The input schema only defines a required 'name' string with no description (0% schema coverage). The description adds significant meaning: 'Use the exact framework name as returned by agent_search_frameworks.' This tells the agent where to source the value and emphasizes exactness, going well beyond the raw 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 explicitly states 'Get detailed information about a compliance framework' and lists specific attributes (description, jurisdiction, version, domains with control counts, cross-framework mapping statistics). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_get_framework_controls and agent_search_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 provides a direct usage hint: 'Use the exact framework name as returned by agent_search_frameworks.' This tells the agent how to obtain the correct parameter value. However, it does not explicitly compare when to use this tool versus alternative siblings like agent_get_framework_controls, leaving a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_get_framework_controlsAInspectGet all controls for a compliance framework
Returns all controls belonging to a framework, optionally filtered by domain. Each control includes: code, title, description, and domain. For large frameworks (e.g. NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5), use the domain filter to narrow results.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| domain | No | Filter controls by domain name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the structure of the response (each control includes code, title, description, domain), which is helpful. However, it does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements, leaving moderate 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 concise (two well-structured sentences plus a list) and front-loads the purpose and key usage advice. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, one required, no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose, usage hints, and response structure. It would benefit from mentioning whether the response is paginated or truncated for large frameworks, but it is largely complete for its scope.
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 50%: the description does not explain the 'name' parameter beyond the schema's requirement, but it does describe the result structure. The 'domain' parameter is already described in the schema ('Filter controls by domain name'), so the description adds little beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get all controls for a compliance framework') and clarifies the scope by mentioning optional domain filtering. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like agent_get_control (single control) and agent_search_frameworks (search, not retrieval).
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 explicitly advises using the domain filter for large frameworks (e.g., NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5), which helps an agent decide when and how to invoke the tool effectively. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_list_course_frameworksAInspectList standards the catalogue covers
Every standard that has courses, with a course count each. Use this to discover valid values for the framework filter before searching. No authentication required.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses 'No authentication required' and implies read-only behavior. However, it omits details like pagination, error responses, or whether data is live vs cached. More behavioral context would be helpful.
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 core information is front-loaded in two sentences plus a brief authentication note. The 'Responses' section is slightly redundant but does not detract. It is concise without being under-specified.
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 parameterless listing tool, the description is largely sufficient. However, given the absence of an output schema, it could be more complete by describing the exact response fields beyond just 'course count'. The structure of the returned objects is not fully clarified.
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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. According to rubric, zero parameters earn a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it correctly focuses on purpose instead.
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 explicitly states 'List standards the catalogue covers' and clarifies it returns each standard with a course count. It distinguishes the tool as a discovery mechanism for framework filter values, which differentiates it from sibling search/retrieval tools like agent_search_frameworks or agent_get_framework.
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 directly says 'Use this to discover valid values for the framework filter before searching.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the positive usage context is strong and sufficient given the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_platform_statsAInspectGet platform statistics
Returns current platform statistics: total framework count, control count, cross-framework mapping count, and domain count. No authentication required.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes no authentication required, which is useful for behavioral expectations. However, with no annotations provided, there is no contradiction, but the description could add more detail about rate limits, data freshness, or whether the counts are cached. The current info is adequate but 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?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences, no filler, and all information is front-loaded. Every sentence is necessary and to the point.
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 this is a simple, parameterless stats tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about what statistics are returned. It does not include potential response structure or edge cases, but for such a straightforward tool, it is complete enough.
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% (no parameters to document). The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (total framework count, control count, etc.), which goes beyond the bare 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 returns platform statistics and specifies the exact counts provided (framework count, control count, cross-framework mapping count, domain count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific frameworks, controls, or courses.
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 states that no authentication is required, implying it's a low-risk, generally useful endpoint. It does not explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to infer it's for a broad overview, while siblings are for specific resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_pricing_infoAInspectGet API pricing and rate limit information
Returns current API pricing tiers, monthly call limits, and (if authenticated) your current month's usage. Use this to understand costs before making API calls.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation (returns data, no side effects) and notes conditional behavior based on authentication. However, it does not describe exactly what happens when unauthenticated or disclose other behavioral traits like latency or rate limits. It is adequate but lacks full 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 with two sentences and a response code header. It is front-loaded with the purpose and return content. The 'Responses' section adds minimal value but does not bloat the text. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it appropriately sized.
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 and zero parameters, the description explains what the tool returns and when to use it. However, it does not detail the structure of pricing tiers or call limits in the response, leaving the agent to infer the format. While sufficient for basic usage, a more complete description would outline the JSON fields returned.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not attempt to, so a score of 4 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'API pricing and rate limit information', specifying the returned data including pricing tiers, call limits, and optionally current usage. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which focus on courses, frameworks, and controls.
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 states 'Use this to understand costs before making API calls', which provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, but given no sibling tool with overlapping purpose, this is acceptable and clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_searchBInspectFull-text search across controls and frameworks
Search the compliance knowledge graph using full-text search. Type 'controls' searches control titles and descriptions. Type 'frameworks' searches framework names and descriptions. Use specific compliance terms for best results (e.g. 'access control', 'encryption at rest', 'data breach notification').
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Search type: 'controls' for control titles/descriptions, 'frameworks' for framework names/descriptions | controls |
| limit | No | Maximum results to return | |
| query | Yes | Search query (e.g. 'access control', 'encryption at rest') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the search behavior adequately but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or disclose any side effects. Given the straightforward search functionality, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks explicit safety or behavioral guarantees.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose but includes an unnecessary 'Responses' section that merely states a 200 HTTP status code. This adds noise and reduces conciseness. The main body is clear but could be tightened.
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 description covers the search functionality and parameter usage reasonably well, but it lacks any details about the return format or structure of results. Given no output schema, the agent is left without expectations for what the tool returns. This is a notable gap for a search 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It repeats examples from the schema and gives a usage tip, but does not deepen understanding of parameter semantics or add new constraints. Baseline 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 it performs full-text search across controls and frameworks, and distinguishes between the two types via the 'type' parameter. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'agent_search_frameworks' or 'agent_search_courses', which could cause confusion about which tool to use for framework search.
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 a usage tip ('use specific compliance terms for best results') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'agent_search_courses' or 'agent_search_frameworks'. There is no explicit when/when-not advice or comparison with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_search_coursesAInspectSearch the course catalogue
Find courses by need, framework, role or industry. Free-text search over the catalogue, optionally narrowed to a named standard.
Examples: q='soc 2 evidence collection', q='first 90 days as CISO', q='data governance healthcare', or q='audit preparation' with framework='ISO 27001'.
Returns up to 25 courses with a direct purchase URL. No authentication required.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | What the buyer needs to do | |
| limit | No | ||
| framework | No | Narrow to a standard, e.g. 'SOC 2' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns up to 25 courses, includes a direct purchase URL, and requires no authentication. It does not cover rate limits, error handling, or pagination, but the information given is sufficient for a read-only search tool.
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 efficiently structured: a one-line summary, then context, examples, result details, and authentication status. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 description covers core functionality, parameters, and result limit, but lacks detail on the return format (beyond 'URL') and does not mention error responses. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should have elaborated on the course fields returned to achieve full 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?
Schema description coverage is 67% (q and framework described, limit not). The description adds significant value by providing concrete examples for q ('soc 2 evidence collection') and framework ('ISO 27001'), and clarifies the limit parameter's maximum via 'Returns up to 25 courses'. This compensates for the missing schema description on limit.
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 searches the course catalogue via free-text, optionally narrowed by framework. The verb 'search' and resource 'course catalogue' are specific, and the option to narrow by framework distinguishes it from siblings like agent_get_course (specific course) and agent_search (general search).
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 gives context for when to use the tool (searching courses by need, framework, role, or industry) but does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as agent_courses_for_frameworks or agent_search. The usage is implied but lacks clear when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_search_frameworksAInspectSearch and list compliance frameworks
Search the compliance knowledge graph for frameworks by name, keyword, or jurisdiction. Returns framework metadata including name, description, jurisdiction, domain count, control count, and mapping-partner count. Without a query, returns all frameworks. Use this as the starting point to discover available frameworks.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search query to filter by name or keyword (e.g. 'ISO 27001', 'privacy', 'Australian') | |
| limit | No | Maximum frameworks to return | |
| jurisdiction | No | Filter by jurisdiction (e.g. 'International', 'Australia', 'United States', 'European Union') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains that the tool searches a 'compliance knowledge graph' and returns specific metadata fields (name, description, jurisdiction, etc.). However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or authentication requirements. For a search operation, read-only is implied but not explicit. The description adds some value with return field details but lacks full 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 core description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and usage guidance. The response section adds some redundancy but is brief. Overall, every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no fluff. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.
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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields (name, description, jurisdiction, counts). It covers the main behavior and filter options. Minor gaps include no mention of pagination, error responses beyond 200, or sorting. However, for a list/search tool with these sibling tools, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use it as a starting point.
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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates parameters (q, limit, jurisdiction) and provides examples ('ISO 27001', 'Australian'), but these are already present in the schema. No additional semantic depth or constraints beyond the schema are added. The description does not clarify the relationship between parameters or edge cases.
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 'Search and list compliance frameworks' with specific verbs and resource. It also positions itself as the starting point for discovery, which subtly distinguishes it from siblings like agent_get_framework (single framework retrieval) and agent_search_courses (course-focused). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast them.
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 advises to 'Use this as the starting point to discover available frameworks' and notes that without a query it returns all frameworks. This provides clear context on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives, but the sibling names (e.g., agent_get_framework) imply that for detailed framework retrieval, other tools are appropriate.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
