Skip to main content
Glama

lexvibe

by io.github.marcosnovo

Look up a privacy or AI framework

lookup_framework
Read-only

Look up a privacy or AI law by id and get structured, primary-sourced facts: full name, jurisdiction, effective date, applicability threshold, the documents it requires, the rights it grants, its cookie-consent regime, whether it requires honouring Global Privacy Control, key articles, and a link to the OFFICIAL text (plus the supervisory authority). Use it to answer 'what does the TDPSA require?' or 'when does the EU AI Act apply?' with citations instead of guesses. Call list_frameworks first if you don't know the id. Read-only, instant, no signup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFramework id, e.g. "gdpr", "eu-ai-act", "ccpa", "tdpsa", "lgpd", "pipl", "dpdp", "popia". Get the full list from list_frameworks.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces these with 'Read-only, instant, no signup,' adding value beyond the structured fields.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and efficiently uses two sentences to cover purpose, details, and usage guidance without waste.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists many returned fields and includes official text and authority, which is complete enough for a lookup tool with strong annotations.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description includes examples and a reference to list_frameworks for obtaining valid ids, adding meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 it looks up a privacy or AI law by id and returns structured facts, listing specific fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_frameworks by focusing on detailed lookup vs. listing ids.

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?

Explicitly advises calling list_frameworks first if the id is unknown, providing clear context for when to use an alternative. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficient.

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