Skip to main content
Glama

compliance-intelligence

by com.theartofservice

agent_search_courses

Search 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.

Responses:

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesWhat the buyer needs to do
limitNo
frameworkNoNarrow to a standard, e.g. 'SOC 2'

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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.

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