Generate DORA policy/framework document draft for a specific article. 8 templates available (Art. 5,6,8,10,11,17,28,30). Uses entity data for customization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | No | ||
| dora_article | No | dora_art5|dora_art6|dora_art8|dora_art10|dora_art11|dora_art17|dora_art28|dora_art30 |
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions using entity data but does not disclose whether this is read-only, whether it persists/saves anything, or any permission/rate-limit requirements. For a generation tool, this lack of side-effect clarity is a notable gap.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word adds value; lists the templates and data usage without redundancy.
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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, templates, and data usage. It doesn't specify output format or side effects, but for a simple generation task, it is reasonably complete.
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 only 50% (dora_article has a description, entity_id does not). The description compensates by explaining entity data is used for customization and by enumerating the 8 article templates, giving the agent the needed context for both parameters.
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?
Description clearly states it generates DORA policy/framework document drafts, specifies the exact article templates (Art. 5,6,8,10,11,17,28,30), and notes customization via entity data. This specific action and resource distinguish it from sibling tools like bafin_report_draft or generate_report.
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?
Provides clear context for when to use: when generating a DORA article-specific policy draft using entity data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a full guideline.
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.