Generate ITS 2024/1772 compliant BaFin incident report draft. All mandatory fields per DORA Art. 19/20. Preview mode — requires board approval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| entity_id | No | ||
| root_cause | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| incident_id | No | ||
| remediation | No | ||
| report_type | No | initial | intermediate | final | |
| classification | No | major | significant | minor | |
| affected_clients | No | ||
| affected_services | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Preview mode' and 'requires board approval', which clarifies that it does not send the report and needs workflow approval. However, it does not mention side effects, persistence, authentication needs, or error behavior, leaving important gaps.
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 very concise: two short sentences, with the main action front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no repetition of schema details.
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 has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a draft document or status), whether it persists data, or how to handle required fields. The 'Preview mode' hint helps but is not enough to make the tool's behavior clear.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (2 of 10 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not explain individual parameters; 'All mandatory fields per DORA Art. 19/20' is a compliance statement but adds little about parameter meanings like title, entity_id, or remediation. This does not compensate for the poor schema coverage.
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 the tool's function: 'Generate ITS 2024/1772 compliant BaFin incident report draft.' It names a specific verb ('generate'), a specific resource ('BaFin incident report draft'), and regulatory context ('ITS 2024/1772'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'bafin_approve_send' and generic 'generate_report'.
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 phrase 'Preview mode — requires board approval' provides clear context that this tool produces a draft that must be approved before submission, implying it is not for final sending. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose, particularly contract analysis (check_contract, contract_analyze, llm_clause_check) which could confuse agents. Assessment-related tools (readiness_check, assess_all, article_status) also have partially overlapping functionality. However, most tools have distinct resources and actions with detailed descriptions.
Tool names are consistently snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_entity, generate_report, register_provider). Minor deviations like contract_analyze and llm_clause_check invert the verb-noun order, but the overall pattern is predictable.
50 tools is a very large surface for a single server, exceeding the threshold for 'too many' tools. While the DORA domain is broad, this breadth makes it challenging for agents to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool set covers the full DORA compliance lifecycle: entity onboarding, contract analysis, provider management, assessments, evidence, reporting, and incident workflows. Simulation and cross-regulation tools add depth. Minor missing CRUD operations (e.g., update/delete entity) but agents can work around.