Skip to main content
Glama

compliance-intelligence

by com.theartofservice

agent_search

Full-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').

Responses:

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoSearch type: 'controls' for control titles/descriptions, 'frameworks' for framework names/descriptionscontrols
limitNoMaximum results to return
queryYesSearch query (e.g. 'access control', 'encryption at rest')

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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.

Conciseness3/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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.

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