compliance_catalogCurated catalogue of the compliance-relevant ISO standards (ISMS/27000, privacy, AI/42000, quality, continuity, risk) → ISO number, family and summary. Static name→number resolver; pass a number to get_standard for the live record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional filter on number/name/summary/family. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe and non-mutating. The description adds further context by calling it a 'static' resolver and a 'curated catalogue,' confirming it is a read-only lookup without side effects. It also mentions the output fields ('ISO number, family and summary'), which goes beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and examples. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary repetition or filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's role and relationship to siblings.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations), the description covers everything needed: what it does, what it returns, and how it relates to a sibling tool. It is complete for an AI agent to understand and use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the single optional parameter 'query' with its purpose and provides an example. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema. It mentions how to pass a number to get_standard, but that is usage guidance rather than parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'curated catalogue of compliance-relevant ISO standards' with specific examples (ISMS/27000, privacy, etc.) and the output mapping (ISO number, family, summary). It also distinguishes itself as a 'static name→number resolver' and directs users to 'get_standard' for live records, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'search_standards' and 'get_standard'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: as a 'static name→number resolver' and to 'pass a number to get_standard for the live record.' This provides clear context for choosing between compliance_catalog and get_standard, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives for broader searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct but there is some overlap among lookup tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile) and among Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). Agents might occasionally struggle to choose the right one.
Naming is inconsistent: some use verb_noun snake_case (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), some are single words (forget, recall, remember), and others are noun-based (compliance_catalog, entity_profile). No consistent pattern.
With 34 tools, the count is too high for a server named 'ISO Standards'. The majority of tools are unrelated to ISO standards (e.g., Polymarket, memory, web scraping), making the scope highly inappropriate.
As an ISO standards server, the tool set is severely incomplete. Only 4-5 tools (search_standards, get_standard, compliance_catalog, open_data_files) actually deal with ISO standards. Essential operations like comparing standards or browsing revisions are missing.