Skip to main content
Glama

Compliance Check

by dev.hatchloop

check_compliance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free, instant pre-flight for the compliance gate. Runs the SAME TCPA / GDPR / CASL / CAN-SPAM / 10DLC gate that send_message and call_business run — but in preview mode, so NO message is sent and NO state changes. Tells you whether a (recipient, channel, message_type, content) send would be permitted BEFORE you pay for it, and if not, names the exact rule and how to remediate. Use it to de-risk a paid send the same way check_booking_link de-risks a paid booking.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Is it legal to text this US number a 20%-off promo?" -> call check_compliance({"recipient_id": "+14045550200", "content": "20% off this week only!", "channel": "sms", "message_type": "marketing", "country_code": "US"}) user: "Before you email the dentist, make sure it's allowed" -> call check_compliance({"recipient_id": "office@dentist.example", "content": "Do you accept Cigna? Following up on my request.", "message_type": "follow_up"}) -> then send_message({"recipient": {"id_type": "email", "id_value": "office@dentist.example"}, "message_type": "follow_up", "content": {"body": "Do you accept Cigna? Following up on my request."}})

WHEN TO USE: Call this the moment before send_message or call_business when there is any chance the send is regulated — anything tagged marketing, any SMS to a US number (10DLC), any message to an EU/UK (GDPR) or Canadian (CASL) recipient, or any content you are unsure about. It is free and sub-100ms, so run it as a guard: if legal=true, proceed to send_message with confidence; if legal=false, fix the cited blocker instead of burning a paid, rejected send. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not treat a legal=true as a permanent license — the gate re-runs at send time, so a fresh opt-out between preview and send still blocks. Do not use it to check two-party voice recording consent (that is evaluated at call time in the voice adapter, not here). It is not a substitute for send_message; it never delivers anything. COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~15ms

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channelNoDelivery channel. Omit to auto-infer sms/email from recipient_id; set 'voice' explicitly.
contentYesThe actual message body you intend to send. The gate classifies the real text, so a meaningful preview needs the real content.
state_codeNoUS state code (e.g. 'CA') for state-specific rules.
country_codeNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 (e.g. 'US', 'DE', 'CA'). Auto-inferred from phone if omitted; drives which jurisdiction rules apply.
message_typeNoIntent tag: transactional, marketing, reminder, follow_up, notification. 'marketing' triggers the consent checks. Defaults to transactional.transactional
recipient_idYesPhone in E.164 (e.g. '+14045550100') or email address the message would go to.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds valuable behavioral context: preview mode sends nothing, changes no state, is free, runs in ~15ms, re-evaluates at send time, and can cite the exact blocking rule and remediation. It also discloses that legal=true is not a permanent guarantee. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 longer than average but well structured with example queries, when-to-use, when-not-to-use, cost, and latency. The first sentence is a crisp, front-loaded summary. The example queries are slightly verbose and reference check_booking_link, which is not in the sibling list, but the overall structure makes the information easy to scan and use.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains what the tool returns: whether the send would be permitted and, if not, the exact rule and remediation. It also mentions a 'legal=true' outcome, which implies the response shape. Combined with cost, latency, edge cases, and exclusions, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing a full example call mapping recipient_id, content, channel, message_type, and country_code to the tool's inputs, and by explaining that the gate evaluates the (recipient, channel, message_type, content) combination. It does not deeply re-explain each parameter, but the schema already does that.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'pre-flight for the compliance gate.' It clearly names the exact regulations (TCPA/GDPR/CASL/CAN-SPAM/10DLC), states that it runs the same gate as send_message and call_business in preview mode, and explicitly says no message is sent and no state changes occur. This fully distinguishes it from the messaging tools and from sibling tools like get_status or preview_cost.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description contains explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections. It instructs calling this tool immediately before send_message or call_business for regulated sends, and it clearly lists exclusions: not a permanent license, not for voice recording consent, and not a substitute for send_message. This gives the agent unambiguous decision rules.

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

All Compliance Check 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct compliance subdomains: messaging compliance, sanctions screening, trade restrictions, company verification, and cost preview. The main overlap is between map_trade_restriction and screen_sanctions, since both screen parties against sanctions lists, but their descriptions differentiate trade-level screening from dedicated name screening well enough.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_compliance, get_outcome, get_status, preview_cost, screen_sanctions, verify_company_record. self_test is the one minor deviation since it reads more like a noun than an imperative verb_object name, but it does not break the overall pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped size for a compliance pre-flight server. Each tool has a distinct role, and the count is neither bloated nor too thin for the apparent domain.

Completeness4/5

The core compliance workflows are covered: messaging pre-flight checks, sanctions screening, cross-border trade restrictions, company registry verification, and cost/status helpers. The main gaps are intentional exclusions like PEP screening, export-control product classification, and consent management, which are documented but prevent the set from being a fully comprehensive compliance suite.

Resources