Skip to main content
Glama

Compliance Check

by dev.hatchloop
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

check_compliance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free, instant pre-flight for the compliance gate: runs the SAME TCPA/GDPR/CASL/CAN-SPAM/10DLC checks as send_message and call_business, in preview mode -- nothing is sent, nothing changes. Tells you whether a send would be permitted before you pay, and if not, names the exact rule and how to fix it. De-risks a paid send the way check_booking_link de-risks a paid booking. [free, no key]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channelNoDelivery channel. Omit to auto-infer sms/email from recipient_id; set 'voice'…
contentYesThe actual message body you intend to send. The gate classifies the real text,…
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…
message_typeNoIntent tag: transactional, marketing, reminder, follow_up, notification.…transactional
recipient_idYesPhone in E.164 (e.g. '+14045550100') or email address the message would go to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / channel / description
      Previous value: -"Delivery channel. Omit to auto-infer sms/email from recipient_id; set 'voice' explicitly."New value: +"Delivery channel. Omit to auto-infer sms/email from recipient_id; set 'voice'…"
    • changedInput schema / properties / content / description
      Previous value: -"The actual message body you intend to send. The gate classifies the real text, so a meaningful preview needs the real content."New value: +"The actual message body you intend to send. The gate classifies the real text,…"
    • changedInput schema / properties / country_code / description
      Previous value: -"ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 (e.g. 'US', 'DE', 'CA'). Auto-inferred from phone if omitted; drives which jurisdiction rules apply."New value: +"ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 (e.g. 'US', 'DE', 'CA'). Auto-inferred from phone if…"
    • changedInput schema / properties / message_type / description
      Previous value: -"Intent tag: transactional, marketing, reminder, follow_up, notification. 'marketing' triggers the consent checks. Defaults to transactional."New value: +"Intent tag: transactional, marketing, reminder, follow_up, notification.…"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds key behavioral facts: nothing is sent, nothing changes, and output includes whether a send is permitted plus the exact rule and fix. 'Free, no key' and 'before you pay' are extra operational context not present in annotations.

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?

Three sentences with front-loaded value—'Free, instant pre-flight'—and every sentence earns its place: what checks run, what it returns, and the analogy to check_booking_link. No filler.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, side effects, cost model, and the exact regulatory scope. The input schema covers parameters, so nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it only says the tool checks content/recipient, which the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb/resource ('pre-flight for the compliance gate') and distinguishes the tool by stating it runs the same TCPA/GDPR/CASL/CAN-SPAM/10DLC checks as send_message and call_business in preview mode. This makes the tool's role clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

It says to use it before paying for a send, in preview mode, and compares it to check_booking_link for de-risking a booking. It does not spell out exclusions or explicit 'when not to use', but the preview-mode language effectively rules out using it when an actual send is intended.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources