Skip to main content
Glama

compliance-intelligence

by com.theartofservice

agent_search_frameworks

Search and list compliance frameworks

Search the compliance knowledge graph for frameworks by name, keyword, or jurisdiction. Returns framework metadata including name, description, jurisdiction, domain count, control count, and mapping-partner count. Without a query, returns all frameworks. Use this as the starting point to discover available frameworks.

Responses:

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoSearch query to filter by name or keyword (e.g. 'ISO 27001', 'privacy', 'Australian')
limitNoMaximum frameworks to return
offsetNoHow many to skip, for paging through the whole catalogue. The limit caps at 200, so an agent that wants every framework pages with offset=0, 200, 400 until it gets fewer than it asked for.
jurisdictionNoFilter by jurisdiction (e.g. 'International', 'Australia', 'United States', 'European Union')

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the return fields and the no-query behavior, which is useful. However, it does not address potential side effects, read-only guarantees, sorting, or error scenarios—though these are less critical for a 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Responses' section is somewhat redundant, but it is small and does not detract much. Overall, it is efficient and well-organized.

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 read-style search tool with four well-documented parameters and a clear return description, the details provided are largely complete. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit list of returned metadata fields, but more detail about result ordering or filtering edge cases could add value.

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 100%, and the schema itself provides detailed parameter descriptions including examples and pagination semantics. The description adds slight context by mentioning search dimensions (name, keyword, jurisdiction) and the no-query case, but it does not substantially go beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Search and list compliance frameworks'), the resource ('compliance knowledge graph'), and the result (framework metadata). It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by presenting itself as the starting point for framework discovery.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this as the starting point to discover available frameworks,' providing clear context for when to invoke it. It also explains the behavior when no query is supplied. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the guidance is sufficient.

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