Skip to main content
Glama

compliance-intelligence

by com.theartofservice

agent_list_crosswalk_pairs

Framework pairs with a released coverage crosswalk

Lists the framework pairs that have a reviewed, signed-off coverage crosswalk, with the coverage figure for each. Call this before agent_coverage_crosswalk to find out which pairs return a number.

A pair that is not listed here has not been through review. Asking for it returns an honest 'not released' rather than an unreviewed percentage. Any pair across the any framework pair in the graph can be built to order, one pair being one unit of work.

No authentication required.

Responses:

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that no authentication is required, and that unreviewed pairs return an honest 'not released' rather than a percentage. It does not describe response format details, but the 200 response section hints at JSON. This is reasonable for a simple list operation.

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 is concise and well-structured: a clear opening, usage context, behavior note, authentication statement, and response hint. The sentence about building pairs to order adds some extra context but is not excessive. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior for missing pairs, and authentication. The only gap is a precise JSON response format, but the 'Responses' section and phrase 'coverage figure for each' give enough for a simple list. It is adequate and complete for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details (none needed) but does clarify the output includes a coverage figure per pair, which is relevant context though not about inputs.

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?

Purpose is explicit: lists framework pairs with a reviewed, signed-off coverage crosswalk and the coverage figure for each. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by its focus on released crosswalks and the coverage value, and it names the associated tool agent_coverage_crosswalk.

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 instructs to call this before agent_coverage_crosswalk to identify which pairs return a number. Also states that pairs not listed are unreviewed and will return 'not released', giving clear when-to-use and exclusion guidance.

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