Skip to main content
Glama

Cortex

by io.cortex.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Getscorecardnextstepsforentity

getScorecardNextStepsForEntity

Get actionable next steps for an entity to improve its scorecard performance. Shows which rules need to be satisfied to reach the next maturity level, helping teams prioritize improvements and track progress toward compliance goals.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagYesUnique tag for the Scorecard
contextYes Explain why you're invoking this tool now and how its output will be used. Then state how this call supports your *overall objective* and fits into your broader plan across all tool calls (e.g., why this tool vs. others, and what step it unblocks). Never share any personal details or sensitive information.
entityTagYesThe entity tag (`x-cortex-tag`) that identifies the entity.
session_idYesSession continuity handle, one of two values: the ses_ ID issued for the task underway, or start. This server cannot link your calls between requests on its own, so session continuity travels in this parameter instead. If you were handed a session_id for this task — for example by the agent that spawned you — send that exact value from your first call. Otherwise send start on your first call; the server will issue an opaque correlation ID in the mcp_session field of the result, or in a text block at the start of the result beginning [session_id issued. Then send that exact ses_ value on every later call and hand it to any subagents working the same task. start always begins a new, unrelated task — never send it mid-task. If you send a value this server does not recognize, the result reports it: mcp_session.status of unrecognized, or a text block beginning [session_id unrecognized; re-send the ID issued for this task, or start if none was issued yet. Never invent a ses_ value.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / session_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Session continuity handle, one of two values: the ses_ ID issued for the task underway, or start. This server cannot link your calls between requests on its own, so session continuity travels in this parameter instead. If you were handed a session_id for this task — for example by the agent that spawned you — send that exact value from your first call. Otherwise send start on your first call; the server will issue an opaque correlation ID in the mcp_session field of the result, or in a text block at the start of the result beginning [session_id issued. Then send that exact ses_ value on every later call and hand it to any subagents working the same task. start always begins a new, unrelated task — never send it mid-task. If you send a value this server does not recognize, the result reports it: mcp_session.status of unrecognized, or a text block beginning [session_id unrecognized; re-send the ID issued for this task, or start if none was issued yet. Never invent a ses_ value.",
+  "pattern": "^(start|ses_[0-9A-Za-z]{27})$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / tag / example
      Added value: +"my-production-readiness-checklist"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "tag",
-  "entityTag",
-  "context"
-]New value: +[
+  "tag",
+  "entityTag",
+  "session_id",
+  "context"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the tool shows rules and helps prioritize improvements, which is a read-only operation by nature. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention any prerequisites (e.g., that the entity must have a scorecard), or disclose any side effects. No contradiction with annotations since none exist, but the description could add more context about what the returned next steps look like or any limitations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and outcome. Every clause adds value: it specifies the action (get next steps), the context (improve scorecard performance), and the output detail (rules to reach next maturity level). No redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized and structured for quick scanning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the tool's purpose and what it returns conceptually (rules to satisfy), which is sufficient for an agent to understand when to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention that a scorecard tag and entity tag are required (though implied by the schema), nor does it describe the exact structure of the next steps output. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is mostly complete but could add a note about prerequisites or return format.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves actionable next steps for an entity to improve scorecard performance, specifically listing which rules must be satisfied to reach the next maturity level. This distinguishes it from siblings like getScorecard (which returns the scorecard itself) and listScorecardScoresForEntity (which lists scores). The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'next steps for an entity' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage when an agent needs to guide improvement toward compliance goals, which is distinct from simply viewing scores or details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when to call this tool versus others. Lacks explicit exclusion statements, but the purpose is clear.

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

All Cortex toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources