Enterprise cross-oracle assessment. Runs 18 checks across CyberShield (NIS2/ISO 27001), SupplyChainOracle (LkSG/CSRD), HealthGuard (MDR/GDPR), CFOCoPilot (XRechnung), TaxOracle (DAC6), LegalTechOracle (DORA contracts). Auto-stores evidence and updates Ampel status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checks | No | Comma-separated check IDs or omit for all | |
| entity_id | No | Entity to assess |
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?
The description discloses that the tool 'Auto-stores evidence and updates Ampel status,' which is a useful side-effect trait. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not mention return values, idempotency, permissions, or whether it is synchronous, leaving several behavioral aspects opaque.
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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. The enumeration of oracles and regulations is dense but essential to convey the cross-oracle nature, though the first sentence is a fragment.
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 complex tool spanning six systems, the description is incomplete. It lacks an explanation of return values, what constitutes a check ID, how entity_id affects execution, and whether the operation is synchronous. No output schema or annotations compensate, leaving substantial gaps for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond listing the oracles; it does not explain valid check IDs or the exact role of entity_id in the assessment, but the schema descriptions are already clear.
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 that the tool runs 18 checks across six named oracles with specific regulations, making its purpose and scope evident. It uses a specific verb ('runs') and resource ('cross-oracle assessment'), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like assess_all or cross_regulation_check, so differentiation is implicit.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Enterprise cross-oracle assessment' implies a broad cross-oracle scenario, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions, leaving the agent without actionable selection criteria.
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.