Create temporary trial entity (48h) for self-service DORA assessment. No login needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| providers | No | Comma-separated provider names: AWS,SWIFT,Finastra | |
| entity_name | No | Institute name | |
| entity_type | No | credit_institution|payment_institution|insurance_undertaking|asset_management|credit_institution_casp | |
| jurisdiction | No | DE|AT|FR|etc |
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 carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the 48-hour expiry and no-login requirement, which are useful. However, it does not disclose what happens after expiry, whether the trial is reversible, or any side effects, leaving gaps for a creation tool.
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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb 'Create', then provides the key qualifiers (temporary, 48h, self-service, no login). Every part adds value and the structure is immediately scannable.
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 simple create tool with four schema-documented parameters and no required fields, the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's purpose and main constraint (48h) but lacks explicit mention of return value or post-creation behavior, which would be useful given no output schema.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (providers, entity_name, entity_type, jurisdiction), so the schema already provides meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the high schema coverage means the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool creates a temporary trial entity for self-service DORA assessment, with a 48-hour lifespan. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_entity by emphasizing 'temporary' and 'trial' and 'No login needed', making its specific purpose obvious.
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 provides clear context for when to use: self-service DORA assessments requiring no authentication. It implies this is for quick trials rather than permanent setups, but does not explicitly name alternatives like create_entity or state when not to use, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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.