Skip to main content
Glama

ai-compliance-monitor

by io.github.vdineshk

check_deadline

Returns upcoming and recent compliance deadlines with enforcement dates, penalty information, and related obligations. Use this to understand time-sensitive compliance requirements.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
months_aheadNoNumber of months ahead to look for upcoming deadlines. Default: 12
include_passedNoWhether to include deadlines that have already passed. Default: false
jurisdiction_codeNoOptional jurisdiction code to filter by. Examples: EU, SG, US-CO

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns deadlines with enforcement dates, penalty information, and related obligations, and implies a read-only operation. It does not cover pagination or response format, but for a query tool the disclosure is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by useful detail. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 explains return content reasonably well (deadlines with enforcement dates, penalties, related obligations). It does not mention default parameter behavior, but those are covered by the schema. Sibling differentiation is implicit but not explicit, slightly reducing completeness.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context about what the deadlines include (enforcement dates, penalties, related obligations) but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 'Returns upcoming and recent compliance deadlines' with specifics like enforcement dates, penalty information, and related obligations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_obligations, which likely focuses on obligations rather than time-sensitive deadlines.

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 phrase 'Use this to understand time-sensitive compliance requirements' provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the temporal focus on deadlines versus other compliance aspects offers reasonable guidance.

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

All ai-compliance-monitor 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: check_deadline focuses on time-sensitive deadlines, check_obligations returns applicable obligations for a use case, compare_jurisdictions provides cross-border comparisons, and get_regulation_articles delves into specific regulation details. The descriptions effectively differentiate the tools, minimizing the risk of misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case (check_deadline, check_obligations, compare_jurisdictions, get_regulation_articles). Even though verbs vary, the pattern is uniform and predictable, matching the calibration example for high coherence.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool covers a necessary aspect of compliance monitoring—deadlines, obligations, comparisons, and regulation details—without unnecessary redundancy or bloat, fitting comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core compliance monitoring workflow: identifying applicable obligations, checking deadlines, comparing jurisdictions, and retrieving regulation details. However, there is no explicit tool to list all regulations or compliance categories, which could be a minor gap for agents unfamiliar with the domain. The existing tools can be chained to discover these, so the gap is workable.

Resources