Skip to main content
Glama

compliance-intelligence

by com.theartofservice

agent_get_framework_controls

Get 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.

Responses:

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
domainNoFilter controls by domain name

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

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