Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

regulatory-radar

by io.github.jdhart81
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Monitor changes

monitor_changes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Watch curated regulatory effective dates and deadlines in a bounded window.

`since_days` controls both recently effective dates behind today and
effective/deadline dates ahead of today. This is a source-linked watch
over the curated Viridis dataset, not a live external regulatory feed.

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": {
      "jurisdiction": "<jurisdiction>"
    },
    "name": "monitor_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicsNo
request_idNo
since_daysNo
payment_refNo
jurisdictionYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / topics
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Topics"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / payment_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Payment Ref"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Request Id"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results come from a curated, source-linked Viridis dataset rather than live regulatory updates, and the window is applied in both directions around today. It does not discuss result limits or ordering, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with zero filler. The clause about since_days is placed immediately after, which is the right order given it is the only parameter explained.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so return values need no explanation. Still, with five parameters and none documented in the schema, an agent cannot tell what topics or jurisdiction values are expected, and payment_ref on a read-only monitoring tool is unexplained and potentially confusing.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It does explain the one counterintuitive parameter well, since_days covering both recent effective dates behind today and deadlines ahead of today. However, topics, jurisdiction, request_id, and payment_ref receive no semantic explanation at all, leaving four of five parameters documented nowhere.

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 and resource ('watch curated regulatory effective dates and deadlines') with a stated scope ('bounded window'), which is far more than a restatement of 'Monitor changes'. It also carves itself out from a live feed, implicitly separating it from scan_regulations, but never names a sibling directly.

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 clarifies what since_days does and that this is a curated dataset rather than a live external feed, which is real usage context. It stops short of saying when to pick this over scan_regulations or assess_compliance, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling names and the 'not a live feed' caveat.

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

All regulatory-radar 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