Skip to main content
Glama

Ground Truth - Fresh Evidence for AI Agents

by io.github.anish632

Compliance Signal Scan

assess_compliance_posture
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan a public security, trust, compliance, or legal page for common enterprise buying signals before you claim a vendor supports a particular compliance posture. It looks for public references to SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, DPA terms, subprocessors, SSO, SCIM, encryption, and data residency language. This is a signal scanner, not proof of certification or legal sufficiency.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic trust, security, compliance, or policy URL to scan.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesCompliance or trust page that was analyzed.
errorNoFetch or parsing error when the page could not be analyzed.
cachedNoTrue when the page body came from the 5-minute cache.
signalsNoBoolean scan results for common enterprise compliance and security signals.
pageLengthNoSize of the fetched page body in characters.
matchedSignalsNoSignal names that were detected on the page.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the tool's limitations ('not proof of certification or legal sufficiency') and the types of signals it scans for, going beyond the structured fields.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the action and purpose, the second lists specific signal types, and the third caveats limitations. Every sentence adds value with no waste, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool with a complete schema and output schema, the description provides thorough context: what it scans, what it looks for, and its limitations. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the description doesn't need to elaborate on the 'url' parameter. The description mentions 'public' pages, which aligns with the schema description and adds minimal extra meaning, making a baseline 3 appropriate.

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 scans public security, trust, compliance, or legal pages for common enterprise buying signals, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by specifying the compliance-posture-related use case and listing concrete signal types, standing out 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?

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool ('before you claim a vendor supports a particular compliance posture') and notes it is a signal scanner, not proof. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

All Ground Truth - Fresh Evidence for AI Agents 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there are several lightly overlapping pairs (check_endpoint/preflight_endpoint, check_pricing/compare_pricing_pages, estimate_market/compare_competitors, test_hypothesis/verify_claim). The detailed descriptions and explicit 'do not use for' notes mitigate confusion, so misselection is unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_endpoint, create_monitor, verify_claim). Even compound verbs like preflight_endpoint and run_monitor_now adhere to the same structure, making the naming fully predictable.

Tool Count4/5

19 tools is slightly heavy but reasonable for the broad scope covering endpoint checks, pricing, compliance, package research, claim verification, and monitor lifecycle. Each tool has a distinct role, though the count edges close to the 'heavy' range.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are well-covered: create/list/delete/get/run/preview monitors, single and comparative pricing checks, endpoint and security verification, and claim testing. Minor gaps exist, such as no update_monitor tool or a way to explicitly verify a claim without pre-supplied evidence URLs, but these are workable.

Resources