Skip to main content
Glama

Scrutica

by io.github.davidgringras

scrutica_get_scenario

Read-only

Fetch geopolitical compute risk scenarios. Available: 'taiwan-strait' (4 TSMC disruption scenarios), 'iran-threat' (IRGC missile range vs Gulf compute), 'tokyo-earthquake' (Japan memory-fab exposure), 'south-china-sea' (submarine cable severing), 'abqaiq-2' (Saudi grid). Returns the scenario's summary plus its substrate serialized from the interactive page's own data modules — assumption scenarios / threat systems / affected assets with per-item sources and authority tiers, capped lists shipping their true totals. The propagation SIMULATION itself remains interactive-only at the returned URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scenario_idYes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: returns summary plus serialized substrate with per-item sources and authority tiers, notes capped lists shipping true totals, and explicitly states the propagation simulation is interactive-only. This goes well beyond the annotation.

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 well-structured sentences: purpose, available values with inline explanations, and return behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the critical limitations are front-loaded in the final sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (summary + substrate), what it does not return (simulation), and the capping behavior. The single parameter is completely explained via the listed scenario IDs, making the tool self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides only an enum of scenario_id values with zero descriptions. The description compensates by explaining each value (e.g., 'taiwan-strait (4 TSMC disruption scenarios)'), giving the agent full semantic understanding of the only parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch geopolitical compute risk scenarios.' It then lists the available scenarios with their unique contents, which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling get_* tools for companies, facilities, supply chains, etc.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for risk scenarios, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The sibling tool names imply the domain, yet the guidance is not fully explicit.

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

All Scrutica 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct resource or action: canonical entity/facility/program lookups, free-text search, supply-chain traversal, BIS query versus BIS change-log, FLOP estimation, and methodology docs. Cross-references explicitly redirect likely-confused intents, such as using scrutica_query_export_controls for entity designations and scrutica_entity_list_changes for changes, so misselection is unlikely.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is mostly consistent: scrutica_get_* for canonical lookups, plus clear action-style names like scrutica_search, scrutica_query_export_controls, and scrutica_estimate_flops. The main deviation is scrutica_entity_list_changes, which reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb-first tool name, so the pattern is coherent but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well calibrated for this server's broad but focused domain coverage. Each meaningful data area gets one or two dedicated tools—companies, facilities, sovereign programs, supply chain, export controls, scenarios, methodology, and FLOP estimation—with no count-inflating duplicates.

Completeness4/5

The read-side surface is largely complete: search, get-by-ID, change-tracking, relationship traversal, scenario retrieval, and methodology lookup all exist. The main gap is that some methodology topics describe metrics or indices—such as cost-index and compute-visibility index—without an obvious dedicated tool for retrieving those metric values directly.

Resources