Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

dora_operational_resilience_stress_tes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess DORA operational resilience by simulating ICT failure scenarios for financial entities. Designed for legal/compliance teams to evaluate ICT risk management under DORA Article 25. Inputs include failure scenario parameters (e.g., ICT service type, duration, impact radius) and entity profile. Outputs structured resilience scores, regulatory gaps, and mitigation recommendations with EUR-Lex/FTC enforcement references.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNoIf true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
entityTypeYes
impactRadiusYes
ictServiceTypeYes
existingMitigationsNo
failureDurationHoursYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
sourcesYes
warningsNo
regulatoryGapsYes
resilienceScoreYes
simulationTimestampNo
recommendedMitigationsYes

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate that. However, it adds context about outputs (resilience scores, regulatory gaps, recommendations) and references. It does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or data handling beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured for quick scanning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers inputs, outputs, and regulatory references. However, it omits explanation of the 'async' parameter and how to use it, which is a notable gap.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage (only 'async' parameter documented), the description partially compensates by listing example parameter categories (failure scenario parameters and entity profile), but it does not detail all 6 parameters, especially 'existingMitigations' and 'async', nor does it explain constraints or formats.

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?

The description clearly states it assesses DORA operational resilience by simulating ICT failure scenarios for financial entities. It specifies the target users (legal/compliance teams) and the regulatory framework (DORA Article 25), but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'dora_metrics_deep_dive'.

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?

The description implies usage for evaluating ICT risk management under DORA, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or scenarios where it should not be used.

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

All mcp-knowledge 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

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in competitive intelligence, ESG, and risk assessment. For example, there are multiple tools for competitor analysis (competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, competitor_moves, etc.) with unclear boundaries. Agents would struggle to select the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of English and French, and follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case (e.g., abm_architect, action_plan_esg), while others are verb-focused (e.g., content_catalog, fx_rate). The lack of a uniform naming convention makes it hard for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 271 tools, the server is excessively large. Even for a broad knowledge domain, this number of tools makes discovery and selection inefficient. Typical coherent servers have 3-15 tools; this has an order of magnitude more, indicating poor scoping.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains (compliance, finance, marketing, HR, etc.), but the coverage is uneven due to redundancy. Key areas have multiple overlapping tools, while some sub-domains may still have gaps. Overall, the surface is broad but not well-curated.

Resources