Skip to main content
Glama

compliance-intelligence

by com.theartofservice

agent_crosswalk_provenance

How do you know this: the grounding behind a crosswalk's claims

For any released framework pair, return the reasoning and the provenance behind its mappings: what document each control was verified against, when, who judged the mapping, on what date, and whether it survived an adversarial pass that argued against it.

Free, no authentication. A claim you cannot check is worth nothing, so the checking is not the paid part.

Responses:

200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
sourceYes
targetYes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the tool returns provenance details (verification document, date, judge, adversarial pass) and that it is free with no authentication. This covers the core read-only behavior effectively, though it omits details on rate limits, error handling, or pagination.

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?

The description front-loads the purpose with a clear statement and then details the output fields. The philosophical aside and 'Responses' section add minor fluff but do not obscure the main message. It is moderately concise and well structured for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately explains the return payload, listing specific provenance fields. However, it omits details on error cases, the meaning of the 'limit' parameter, and how to specify framework pair identifiers, which would enhance completeness. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but not exhaustive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain 'source', 'target', or 'limit'. The phrase 'framework pair' hints that source and target are framework identifiers, but the 'limit' parameter is completely unexplained. This leaves the agent without critical usage details for the parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'For any released framework pair, return the reasoning and the provenance behind its mappings.' It details specific output fields (document, date, judge, adversarial pass), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_coverage_crosswalk or agent_cross_framework_map that focus on mappings rather than provenance. The opening question reinforces the purpose.

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 description implies use when provenance behind crosswalk mappings is needed, and notes 'Free, no authentication' as a condition. However, it does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria. No sibling tools are referenced, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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

All compliance-intelligence toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools cover overlapping crosswalk and coverage territory: agent_coverage_crosswalk, agent_coverage_report, agent_cross_framework_map, agent_crosswalk_pair, and agent_combined_coverage could all be chosen for similar questions. The near-duplicate agent_get_framework_controls and agent_get_framework_controls_by_name also creates avoidable ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the agent_ prefix and snake_case style, but the grammatical pattern is mixed: many are verb_noun (agent_buy_crosswalk, agent_search_courses, agent_get_framework), while others are noun phrases or descriptive fragments (agent_capital_by_function, agent_combined_coverage, agent_controls_touched_by, agent_signals_this_week). The convention is readable but not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

27 tools is above the 25-tool threshold and the set feels heavier than necessary because several crosswalk/coverage tools could be consolidated into a smaller family. The broad domain justifies variety, but the count is bloated by overlapping query surfaces and at least one redundant route.

Completeness4/5

The domain is well covered for a read-only compliance intelligence platform: framework discovery, control lookup, crosswalk analysis, course search, funding-signal exploration, and purchase-link generation are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to inspect full control lists for arbitrary domains or retrieve mappings for a specific target control, but agents can generally work around them.

Resources