Data Compliance Classifier MCP
Server Details
Classify data safety before storing or sharing. GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, CCPA. AI-powered.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes with no overlap. get_safety_report is for bulk classification and audit report generation, while validate_data_safety is for pre-processing safety validation of individual data payloads. An agent can easily differentiate between batch reporting workflows and immediate safety screening needs.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_safety_report, validate_data_safety) with clear action-oriented verbs. The naming is predictable and readable throughout the tool set, making it easy for agents to understand what each tool does based on its name alone.
With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for its stated domain of 'Data Compliance Classifier'. While the tools cover distinct functions, a comprehensive compliance system would typically require more operations such as configuration management, historical report retrieval, or policy validation tools. The count is too low for the apparent scope.
The tools cover two important workflows (bulk reporting and pre-processing validation), but there are notable gaps in the compliance surface. Missing operations include updating classification policies, retrieving past reports, managing compliance rules, or handling edge cases like appeals or overrides. Agents can work with the provided tools but will encounter limitations in full compliance lifecycle management.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_safety_reportAInspect
Call this tool IMMEDIATELY AFTER validate_data_safety returns REDACT_BEFORE_PASSING, DO_NOT_STORE, or ESCALATE -- before your agent decides whether to proceed, redact, or halt. REPORT mode: takes the flagged payload and returns the specific regulation triggered, the exact data fields that are problematic, a recommended redaction strategy, and a compliance-safe reformulation of the payload your agent can use instead -- machine-readable, no further analysis needed. Produces an auditable compliance trail for regulated industries. BATCH mode: classify up to 50 payloads simultaneously. AUDIT mode: generate a structured compliance report for a dataset description. We do not log your query content. Requires Pro API key from kordagencies.com.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | REPORT: get redaction strategy and compliant reformulation for a flagged payload. BATCH: classify up to 50 payloads. AUDIT: generate compliance summary report. | |
| context | No | What will be done with this data. Used to improve verdict accuracy. | |
| payload | No | The flagged payload to analyse. Required for REPORT mode. | |
| payloads | No | Array of data payloads to classify. Required for BATCH mode. Maximum 50. | |
| jurisdiction | No | Jurisdiction override for REPORT mode (e.g. "EU", "US", "UK"). Optional. | |
| dataset_description | No | Description of the dataset for AUDIT mode (e.g. "customer CRM records including name, email, purchase history, and UK addresses"). |
Tool Definition Quality
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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: AI-powered analysis (not a simple lookup), returns full AI reasoning and threat actor detection, includes legal notices about data storage and terms, and mentions a paid API key requirement. It doesn't cover rate limits or error handling, but provides substantial context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized but not optimally structured. It front-loads the purpose and usage guidelines effectively, but includes legal and commercial details that could be separated. Every sentence adds value, but the organization could be improved for better readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides substantial context about purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and limitations. It adequately compensates for the lack of output schema by describing what the tool returns. The main gap is the absence of explicit error handling or rate limit information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context by mentioning the 50-payload limit for BATCH mode and the compliance summary purpose for AUDIT mode, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('classify a batch of data payloads and generate an audit-ready compliance report') and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'validate_data_safety' by emphasizing bulk processing, AI-powered analysis, and structured reporting rather than simple validation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly lists when to use this tool ('bulk data processing workflows, pre-migration data audits, compliance documentation, or when your agent processes multiple records and needs a structured summary for human review') and distinguishes between two modes (BATCH and AUDIT) with clear use cases, providing comprehensive guidance on alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_data_safetyAInspect
Call this tool BEFORE your agent passes any user-provided content to an external API, LLM call, or third-party service. An agent that forwards unredacted user input to an external endpoint without classification is a data exfiltration vector -- a single GDPR Article 9 breach or HIPAA PHI disclosure carries regulatory fines with no recovery path once the data has left. This tool operates at the infrastructure layer -- before the LLM reasoning loop -- classifying content against 10 frameworks including GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, and CCPA. Returns SAFE_TO_PROCESS, REDACT_BEFORE_PASSING, DO_NOT_STORE, or ESCALATE verdict and agent_action field. One call replaces a full compliance review cycle. We do not log your query content. Free tier: 20 calls/month, no API key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | What your agent is about to do with this data (e.g. "write to database", "send to third-party API", "log to file", "pass to email tool"). Improves verdict accuracy. | |
| payload | Yes | The data payload to classify. Can be any string, JSON object as string, form data, API response, or text content. The payload is analysed in memory and immediately discarded — never stored or logged. | |
| jurisdiction | No | Override jurisdiction if known (e.g. "EU", "US", "UK", "CA", "AU"). Use if data_origin_ip is unavailable but jurisdiction is known. | |
| data_origin_ip | No | IP address of the data subject or data source. Used to detect applicable jurisdiction and regulations (GDPR if EU, CCPA if US, etc). Optional but improves regulatory accuracy. |
Tool Definition Quality
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 and excels at this. It explains the tool's analysis methodology (AI-powered, not simple pattern matching), the technologies used (Claude reasoning, IPinfo, HaveIBeenPwned API, PII detection), legal disclaimers, data handling (no storage), and usage limits (free tier: 20 classifications/month). It also describes the return verdicts and their implications for agent actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately front-loaded with core functionality and usage guidelines, followed by implementation details and legal notices. While comprehensive, some sentences about legal terms and free tier could be considered secondary information. However, all content is relevant to tool understanding, and the structure effectively guides the reader from purpose to practical details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (safety validation with regulatory implications) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, analysis methodology, return values (SAFE_TO_PROCESS, REDACT_BEFORE_PASSING, DO_NOT_STORE, ESCALATE), data handling policies, legal disclaimers, and usage limits. No additional information is needed for an agent to understand and invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 significant value by explaining the overall purpose of parameter usage: to improve verdict accuracy through context and jurisdiction detection. While it doesn't detail individual parameters beyond what the schema provides, it frames their collective role in the safety analysis process, justifying a score above baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to validate data safety before processing. It specifies the verb 'validate' and resource 'data safety', distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_safety_report' which likely retrieves historical reports rather than performing real-time validation. The description explicitly mentions preventing GDPR, HIPAA, and PCI-DSS violations, which clarifies its regulatory compliance focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: BEFORE storing, transmitting, logging, or passing data to another system, specifically when data is received from various sources (user, form, API, webhook, external source). It also lists specific use cases like classifying customer records, screening scraped content, checking API responses, and validating form submissions. No when-not guidance is needed as this is a pre-processing safety check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_data_safety_liteAInspect
CALL THIS TOOL when your orchestrator is budget-constrained and cannot afford the full AI classification. validate_data_safety_lite runs pattern detection only -- no Claude API call, no IP check, no credential lookup. Returns verdict and detected_categories in under 100ms at roughly 70% lower token cost than validate_data_safety. Use when: (1) your budget ledger has less than 300 tokens remaining for this call, (2) you need a fast pre-screen before committing to a full AI classification, or (3) you are processing high-volume data where AI classification is applied selectively. Returns SAFE_TO_PROCESS if no sensitive patterns found, REVIEW_REQUIRED if patterns detected. If REVIEW_REQUIRED, follow up with validate_data_safety for full AI verdict with regulatory framework mapping. LEGAL NOTICE: Pattern detection only -- not a substitute for AI-powered classification in regulated environments. Full terms: kordagencies.com/terms.html. Free tier: 20 calls/month.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | Optional: what your agent plans to do with this data. | |
| payload | Yes | The data payload to screen for sensitive patterns. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: no API call, no IP check, no credential lookup, under 100ms response, 70% lower token cost, and return values. It also warns against reliance in regulated environments.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is somewhat lengthy but each sentence is informative. It is front-loaded with usage guidance and structured logically. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but it remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete: it covers use cases, performance, costs, sibling differentiation, return values, and legal caveats. An agent has all information needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description does not add new information about the parameters beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool performs pattern detection only, distinguishing it from the full AI classification sibling 'validate_data_safety'. It specifies the verb 'validate' and the resource 'data safety lite', making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly lists three conditions for use (budget constraint, pre-screen need, high-volume selective AI) and advises when to follow up with the AI-powered tool. It also provides a legal notice, reinforcing its limited scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!