Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

HumanLeg.ai

by io.github.humanleg-ai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get HumanLeg compliance review

humanleg_get_compliance_review

Retrieve the exact-content compliance decision for a task.

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>"
    },
    "name": "humanleg_get_compliance_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics beyond the word "Retrieve", auth requirements, whether a decision always exists, or what happens on error. For a no-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than genuinely tight.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information about the return value, and "the exact-content compliance decision" does not describe its shape, fields, or possible states. For a retrieval tool whose whole value is the returned decision, this leaves the agent guessing.

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 description coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter and the schema itself constrains it to a UUID with a pattern. The phrase "for a task" does link taskId to a task identifier, adding modest meaning beyond the schema, though nothing about format or lookup semantics.

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?

Specific verb (Retrieve) plus a specific resource (the compliance decision for a task), which is clearly distinct from the sibling get_task and the two create_* tools. The qualifier "exact-content" is jargon that isn't explained, but the core action is identifiable.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No statement of when to call this versus humanleg_get_task, no prerequisites, and no indication of what to expect when a task has no review. The only usage signal is the implicit "for a task", which the schema already conveys via taskId.

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

All HumanLeg.ai toolsInspect
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.

Resources