Skip to main content
Glama

compliance-intelligence

by com.theartofservice

agent_signal_exposure

Where a framework meets where the money is going

A framework, a function, and the controls where the two meet.

This answers the question the brief cannot answer for a reader, because it does not know who they are: money is moving into this capability, and here is what my own standard already asks of me about it.

Responses:

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
functionNoYour function, e.g. 'AI and automation'
frameworkYesThe standard you are held to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses only that a 200 response is successful and returns JSON, but says nothing about side effects, read-only status, pagination, limits, or error behavior. This is effectively no meaningful behavioral guidance.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is short but not effective; it consists of cryptic promotional phrases rather than clear, instructive content. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative, and the opening line adds no operational value for an AI agent deciding to call the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling set, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, what the response represents, or when this tool is appropriate. An agent would have almost no basis for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description mentions 'a framework, a function, and the controls,' which loosely echoes the framework and function parameters, but it adds no concrete meaning beyond the schema. The schema already documents framework and function; limit remains undocumented by the description. With schema coverage at only 67%, the description should compensate but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is vague and poetic ('Where a framework meets where the money is going') rather than stating a clear verb and resource. It never explicitly says what the tool does, such as retrieving, calculating, or exposing something. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling tools or the name 'agent_signal_exposure'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. The text refers to a 'brief' and 'money is moving into this capability,' but does not state conditions for use, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. A reader is left to infer the intended use.

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