Skip to main content
Glama

POSH compliance health check

posh_compliance_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks an employer against seven questions under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 — constitution of the Internal Committee in writing, its composition, a committee at every office, training, display, and annual reporting — and lists each gap with the provision concerned and the penalty provision. Use when an employer asks whether its POSH compliance is in order.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
displayYesAre the penal consequences of sexual harassment and the order constituting the Committee displayed at a conspicuous place in the workplace?
trainingYesIn the last twelve months, have you run BOTH employee workshops AND a separate orientation for Internal Committee members? "both", "staff_only" (employee workshops only) or "neither"
headcountYesHow many workers are engaged at your largest workplace? "under_10" = fewer than 10; "10_or_more" = 10 or more
annual_reportYesFor the last completed CALENDAR year, has the Committee prepared its annual report and has the employer made its disclosure? "both_done", "one_or_neither", or "financial_year_basis" (reports are made on the financial year)
four_member_committeeYesDoes the Committee have at least four members — a woman Presiding Officer employed at a senior level, not less than two members from amongst the employees, and the external member?
constituted_in_writingYesHas an Internal Committee been constituted by an order in writing?
committee_at_every_unitYesIf you have offices or administrative units at more than one place, is there a Committee at each of them? Answer true if there is only one office.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing what the result contains (each gap with the provision concerned and the penalty provision) and that the check is statutory rather than advisory; it does not discuss auth or rate limits, but none are implied.

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 core check is front-loaded in the first clause and the usage trigger closes the description; every phrase corresponds to a real assessment dimension. The single long em-dash sentence is dense but not padded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent what comes back (a gap list keyed to provisions plus penalty provisions) and what inputs drive it, which is sufficient for a 7-parameter read-only diagnostic whose parameters are fully documented in the schema.

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% with detailed per-parameter descriptions and enum meanings, so the baseline is 3. The description's enumeration of the seven questions largely restates the parameters (constitution in writing, composition, committee at every office, training, display, annual reporting) and adds only the framing that each maps to a statutory duty.

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?

States a specific verb (checks) and resource (an employer's POSH compliance against seven statutory questions under the 2013 Act), and enumerates the exact dimensions assessed. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like lookup_bare_act_section or screen_recovery_matter without opening any schema.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger: "Use when an employer asks whether its POSH compliance is in order." That is clear situational context, but it names no alternative tool or exclusion (e.g. when to prefer lookup_bare_act_section or find_rbi_nbfc_direction for adjacent queries).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources