Skip to main content
Glama

regulatory-radar

by io.github.jdhart81

scan_regulations

Scan a jurisdiction (e.g. EU, US, california, or CA for Canada), optionally filtered by sector.

Returns regulations with urgency flags and effective dates. Price: $0.25
per call after 10 free calls/day. Pay at
/x402/regulatory-radar/scan_regulations with Base USDC, cash-fund payment_ref through
escrow_checkout + confirm_escrow_funding, or use /seats.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sectorNo
request_idNo
payment_refNo
jurisdictionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description covers pricing ($0.25/call after 10 free calls), payment method (Base USDC, payment_ref), and endpoint path. However, it does not disclose rate limits, idempotency, or authentication requirements beyond payment context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively short (two sentences plus pricing) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the pricing and payment details add clutter that could be moved to annotations or separate documentation, reducing overall conciseness.

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?

The description mentions return values (regulations with urgency flags and effective dates), and the output schema exists. Yet, it lacks details on parameter meanings for request_id and payment_ref, and does not reference the output schema to agents, making it moderately complete.

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?

The description clarifies 'jurisdiction' and 'sector' parameters by giving examples (EU, US, etc.) and mentioning optional sector filtering. However, 'request_id' and 'payment_ref' are not explained; payment_ref is only referenced in payment instructions without defining its role as a 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 clearly states the verb 'scan' and the resource 'regulations' with a specific jurisdiction, and optionally filtered by sector. It distinguishes from siblings like 'assess_compliance' and 'monitor_changes' by focusing on raw regulatory scanning.

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 scanning regulations by jurisdiction and sector, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tools offer different functionalities, but no direct comparison is made.

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
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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: scanning regulations, monitoring changes, assessing compliance, and self-description. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., assess_compliance, monitor_changes). No deviations.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for the server's purpose of regulatory monitoring. It covers essential functions without being over or under.

Completeness3/5

The set covers core workflow (scan, monitor, assess) but lacks tools for detailed regulation retrieval, compliance history, or alert configuration, leaving noticeable gaps.

Resources