compliance_statusCompany-level compliance posture rollup (pass rate, control compliance, mitigated counts, per-framework coverage). Suitable for a CI gate. Wraps the traceability company rollup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id | No | Optional anchor scan; latest is used if omitted | |
| diagram_id | No | Optional diagram to add framework coverage for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it wraps the traceability company rollup, providing aggregation context. No hidden behaviors disclosed, but no contradictions. Could mention error behavior for invalid scan_id.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key information. Every word earns its place. No fluff.
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?
No output schema, but description lists return values (pass rate, etc.). Given the tool's simplicity and complete annotations, the description is sufficiently complete.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description does not add new meaning beyond summarizing parameters as 'Optional anchor scan' and 'Optional diagram.' Baseline 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 it provides a company-level compliance posture rollup including pass rate, control compliance, mitigated counts, and per-framework coverage. It distinguishes itself from siblings like compliance_scan (runs a scan) and get_framework_coverage (more specific).
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?
Explicitly states it is 'Suitable for a CI gate,' giving a clear usage context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., apply vs. get remediation, scan vs. status). A few pairs like get_insights and get_diagram_summary overlap slightly in metrics but descriptions clarify differences. No major ambiguity.
Predominantly verb_noun pattern (apply_, get_, generate_). However, code_review_scan and compliance_scan are noun phrases without a leading verb, and compliance_status is noun_noun, introducing minor inconsistency.
15 tools is at the upper end of typical but still reasonable for a security platform covering scanning, remediation, threat modeling, billing, and reporting. Each tool serves a clear function; no obvious bloat.
Covers core workflows: code/cloud/compliance scanning, threat modeling, remediation (dry-run and apply), traceability, insights. Minor gaps like missing scan listing or account management, but these align with the platform's assessment focus.