DORA compliance gaps. RED/GREY/YELLOW items with priority and required actions.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "gap_report"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | No | Entity ID (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing safety and side effects. It does not state whether this is a read-only report, what data sources it accesses, or whether it requires any setup. It does discuss the output characteristics (colors, priority, actions), but that is not sufficient behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotations.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key output details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?
Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable high-level summary but omits important context such as how entity_id filters results, the meaning of the color codes, and the overall report format. It is adequate for a simple report tool but could be more complete for an agent to invoke 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?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter entity_id, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on how entity_id affects the report, so no additional meaning is added beyond the schema's description.
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 identifies the tool's focus: DORA compliance gaps. It adds specific output characteristics (RED/GREY/YELLOW items, priority, required actions) that clarify the report's content, distinguishing it from more general assessment tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'reports', relying on the tool name to imply the action.
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 given for when to use this tool over siblings like readiness_check or assess_all. The description implies it should be used for DORA gap reporting but provides no explicit context or exclusions. This is particularly important given the large number of similar compliance/assessment tools.
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.