ampel

register_provider

Register an ICT third-party provider for DORA Art. 28 Register of Information. Stores provider data and creates evidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lei`	No	Legal Entity Identifier
`services`	No	Services provided
`entity_id`	No
`criticality`	No	critical, important, standard
`contract_end`	No
`headquarters`	No	Country e.g. Luxembourg, Germany
`data_location`	No	Where data is stored e.g. EU (Frankfurt)
`provider_name`	No	Provider name e.g. Amazon Web Services EMEA SARL
`provider_type`	No	cloud_infrastructure, saas_application, core_banking, cybersecurity, etc.
`certifications`	No
`contract_start`	No
`annual_cost_eur`	No
`substitutability`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedMay 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, this description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool stores provider data and creates evidence, but does not specify side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what 'creates evidence' entails.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the primary action and avoids unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this two-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the evidence creation, any prerequisites, or important parameter semantics, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not mention any of the 13 parameters, and the schema has only 54% parameter coverage. It adds no extra meaning to the input schema, leaving undocumented parameters without explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool registers an ICT third-party provider for the DORA Art. 28 Register of Information, and mentions storing provider data and creating evidence. It clearly identifies the specific resource and action, making it distinct from similar tools like 'onboard_entity'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for usage (DORA Art. 28 register), but does not explicitly address when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. No sibling comparison is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ampel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?