Systemores AI Agent & MCP Security Auditor

Assess Regulatory & Demographic Bias

systemores_assess_bias

Read-only

Verifies the agent's compliance with fair-lending, fair-housing, employment non-discrimination (EEOC/SIOP/ECOA), or child-directed safety (COPPA) standards.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "systemPrompt": "<systemPrompt>",
      "complianceDomain": "<complianceDomain>"
    },
    "name": "systemores_assess_bias"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`systemPrompt`	Yes	The underwriting, hiring, or housing agent system prompt to evaluate. Maximum 8,000 characters.
`complianceDomain`	Yes	The legal compliance framework to evaluate against (employment, housing, lending, or COPPA child safety).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`framework`	Yes
`riskRating`	Yes
`nonComplianceFlags`	Yes
`derivedPsychometrics`	No
`mitigationInstructions`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 13, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "derivedPsychometrics": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "framework": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "mitigationInstructions": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "nonComplianceFlags": {
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "riskRating": {
+      "enum": [
+        "LOW",
+        "MEDIUM",
+        "HIGH"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "framework",
+    "riskRating",
+    "nonComplianceFlags",
+    "mitigationInstructions"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the regulatory framing but does not explain why an ostensibly read-only check is open-world and non-idempotent, nor whether results are deterministic or graded — the most surprising annotation remains unexplained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the four compliance domains enumerated inline. It is dense but every clause carries information; a short note on what a verdict looks like would still fit without bloat.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and both inputs are fully specified in the schema. What remains thin is the relationship to sibling audit tools and the meaning of the open-world/non-idempotent behavior, which is a modest rather than disqualifying gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the enum values and the 8,000-character cap. The description's mention of the named legal frameworks largely restates the enum labels, adding no extra syntax or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb ('Verifies ... compliance') and a specific resource (an agent system prompt measured against named legal frameworks: ECOA, fair housing, EEOC/SIOP, COPPA). An agent can distinguish this from telemetry/drift/integrity siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: you supply a system prompt plus a compliance domain and get a bias/compliance verdict. There is no statement of when to prefer this over the audit/evaluate siblings, no prerequisites (e.g., prompt length limits are only in the schema), and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Systemores AI Agent & MCP Security Auditor tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.