Skip to main content
Glama

lexvibe

by io.github.marcosnovo

List the frameworks LexVibe tracks

list_frameworks
Read-only

List every privacy and AI framework LexVibe generates documents against — 60 laws across 60+ jurisdictions, including GDPR, ePrivacy, the EU AI Act, UK GDPR and PECR, Swiss nFADP, CCPA/CPRA and 18 US state privacy laws modelled individually, PIPEDA and Quebec Law 25, LGPD and other LatAm regimes, APPI, PIPA, PDPA, Australia's Privacy Act, India's DPDP, China's PIPL, Saudi and UAE PDPL, POPIA and more. Each entry carries its id, jurisdiction, effective date and official-text URL. Optionally filter by market pack or by jurisdiction. Read-only, instant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketNoOptional market pack to filter by (eu, uk, us, latam, apac…).
jurisdictionNoOptional jurisdiction id to filter by, e.g. "us-tx", "br", "eu".

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds 'Read-only, instant,' which provides performance expectations and reinforces safety. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('List every privacy and AI framework…') and includes many examples, which is informative but somewhat lengthy. Still, every sentence adds value and no fluff.

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?

The description specifies output fields (id, jurisdiction, effective date, official-text URL) despite no output schema. It covers filtering and read-only nature. It lacks pagination details, but for a static list, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100% with both parameters already described (market enum, jurisdiction string). The description lists example jurisdictions (e.g., 'us-tx', 'br', 'eu') but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists every privacy and AI framework LexVibe tracks, with specifics about 60 laws across 60+ jurisdictions and examples like GDPR, ePrivacy, EU AI Act, etc. It distinguishes from siblings like lookup_framework by indicating it returns a comprehensive list with optional filters.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains optional filtering by market or jurisdiction, implying usage for browsing or overview. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like applicable_frameworks or lookup_framework, but the context is clear enough for a simple list operation.

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

All lexvibe 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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: check_ai_act classifies AI risk, check_store and check_website audit different platform listings, claim_app creates an app, generate_policies drafts legal docs, get_claim_status tracks claim confirmation, and get_install_snippet provides installation code. No two tools overlap in function.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., check_ai_act, claim_app, generate_policies). The naming is predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is a well-scoped set for the server's purpose: three for compliance checks, one for app creation, one for policy generation, one for status tracking, and one for installation snippets. Each tool earns its place without being excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the primary workflows: checking compliance, creating an app, generating policies, and installation. A minor gap is the lack of update/delete tools for apps, but the core lifecycle is covered. Agents can successfully complete the intended tasks.

Resources