Analyze contract against 15 DORA Art. 30 mandatory clauses. Returns compliance status per clause with confidence score, extracted text, gap reasoning, suggested fix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | No | Document ID from contract_upload |
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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the analysis scope and enumerates output fields (compliance status, confidence score, extracted text, gap reasoning, suggested fix), providing a transparent view of behavior. It does not mention side effects, but for this read-like analysis tool the output disclosure is substantial.
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 two sentences: the first names the action and scope, the second enumerates the output. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler.
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 single-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers input source (via schema), action, clause detail, and return fields. It lacks explicit prerequisites about contract state, but enough context is present for an agent to use it 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% ('document_id' described as 'Document ID from contract_upload'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already fully explains the single parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('contract against 15 DORA Art. 30 mandatory clauses'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'contract_status' or 'check_contract' by specifying the exact clause scope and output components.
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 implies usage after contract_upload by referencing document_id, and clearly sets the context of analyzing against DORA Art. 30. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.
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.