Start bridge resolution workflow. Generates templates (Risk Acceptance, Contract Renegotiation, Concentration Policy, Exit Strategy), tracks approval process. Call bridge_approve to sign off.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check_id | No | Check to resolve: art30_c1, art30_c2, art30_c3, art8_c3, art31_c1 | |
| entity_id | No | Entity ID (optional) | |
| expiry_days | No | Days until resolution expires (default 30) |
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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: generates templates and tracks the approval process. However, it omits details about persistence, side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or behavior on repeated calls, leaving some ambiguity for a state-changing workflow starter.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The key action, generated artifacts, tracking behavior, and follow-up tool are all packed efficiently. The description is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a workflow starter with a well-documented input schema, the description is fairly complete: it names the workflow, lists the templates, mentions approval tracking, and directs to the next tool. It lacks return/result details, but no output schema exists and the follow-up step is explicitly indicated, making the overall context sufficient.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even if the description adds no parameter details. The description does not mention parameters, but the schema already documents check_id, entity_id, and expiry_days with sufficient meaning. No extra semantics are needed.
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 uses the specific verb 'Start' with the resource 'bridge resolution workflow' and enumerates generated templates (Risk Acceptance, Contract Renegotiation, Concentration Policy, Exit Strategy), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like bridge_approve and bridge_status. This makes the tool's role in the pipeline unambiguous.
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?
It clearly states the action ('Start bridge resolution workflow') and provides sequencing guidance by directing the agent to call bridge_approve for sign-off. It does not explicitly describe when not to use this tool or name alternative starting points, but the context is clear enough for an agent to proceed.
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.