RCO-A2A - Regulatory Compliance Objects

Get record by id

get_record

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return any RCO by record_id, including superseded records - the audit trail, retained byte-identical.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`record_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`state`	Yes
`issuer`	Yes
`key_id`	Yes
`signal`	Yes
`eco_ref`	Yes
`rule_set`	Yes
`object_id`	Yes
`record_id`	Yes
`signature`	Yes	Detached JWS Compact Serialization (RFC 7515) with unencoded payload (RFC 7797): BASE64URL(protected header {alg:ES256, b64:false, crit:[b64], kid}) '..' BASE64URL(ES256 raw R\|\|S). Signing input = ASCII(BASE64URL(protected header) '.') \|\| RFC 8785 canonical JSON of the record with this member removed. Test vectors: signature-test-vectors.json.
`case_study`	No
`conditions`	No
`supersedes`	Yes
`rco_version`	Yes
`resolved_at`	Yes
`valid_until`	Yes
`jurisdiction`	Yes
`evidence_refs`	Yes
`verification_url`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedSep 17, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
removedOutput schema / properties / conditions / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

changedOutput schema / properties / eco_ref / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  },
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "hash": {
-        "pattern": "^sha256:[a-f0-9]{64}$",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "url": {
-        "format": "uri",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "url",
-      "hash"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "hash": {
+        "pattern": "^sha256:[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "url": {
+        "format": "uri",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "url",
+      "hash"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / evidence_refs / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
removedOutput schema / properties / issuer / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
removedOutput schema / properties / rule_set / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds value beyond those by disclosing that superseded records are returned and that content is retained byte-identical, which an agent would not infer from the safety hints alone.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence where every clause earns its place: verb, resource, scoping ('any'), and the key behavioral qualifier about superseded records. No filler or redundancy.

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, annotations covering safety, and only one parameter, the description covers the notable behavioral quirk (superseded records, byte-identical retention). It stops just short of fully complete by not defining what an RCO is or explaining the record_id format, but nothing critical is missing for a read tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates that record_id identifies an RCO. It does not explain the identifier's components (gtin vs host, apex, ECO-10060) or how to obtain one, leaving the cryptic pattern in the schema unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource (RCO by record_id), and a distinguishing behavior (including superseded records). This separates it from siblings like publish_record (write) and list_issuers (enumeration) without opening any schema.

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 (fetching any RCO by ID, including historical versions) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives such as resolve_compliance or list_issuers, leaving routing partially to inference.

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

All RCO-A2A - Regulatory Compliance Objects 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.