Skip to main content
Glama

Compliance Check

by dev.hatchloop

self_test

Read-onlyIdempotent

Service health probe: runs 6 internal checks and reports how many passed. Confirms the server is up and responding - it does NOT probe each tool individually. Use to verify connectivity before production use.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Run a health check before I send the broadcast" -> call self_test({})

WHEN TO USE: Use at agent startup, before high-stakes task sequences, or after receiving unexpected errors to check if the service is degraded. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not call more than once per minute in production. COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~200ms

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses latency (~200ms), cost (free, no key required), the number of checks performed, and the fact that it does not probe individual tools. These details add meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections, front-loads the core purpose, and every included section adds value: example, when to use, when not to use, cost, and latency. It is thorough without being bloated.

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 zero-parameter, read-only health check with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what it does, what it returns ('reports how many passed'), when to use it, when not to use it, and expected performance characteristics. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is already fully specified as empty, so there is little for the description to add. The example 'call self_test({})' reinforces that no arguments are needed, satisfying the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 first sentence identifies a specific verb and resource: 'runs 6 internal checks and reports how many passed.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from per-tool probes ('it does NOT probe each tool individually'), which helps an agent differentiate it from the 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 Guidelines5/5

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

The description includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' guidance: at agent startup, before high-stakes sequences, and after unexpected errors. It also provides a clear exclusion: 'Do not call more than once per minute in production,' plus a matching example user query.

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