Show cross-regulation impacts for a specific DORA article. Maps DORA → MiCA + AMLR.
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": "regulation_impact"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dora_article | No | DORA article ID (e.g. dora_art28) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Show' implies a read-only operation, and the mapping is disclosed, but there is no mention of output format, error handling, or prerequisites. This is adequate for a simple tool but not richly transparent.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every word contributes value. No redundancy or fluff.
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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it does and the mapping logic. It lacks explicit return structure, but the phrasing 'Maps DORA → MiCA + AMLR' hints at the output. Given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly 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 100% for the single parameter, providing the parameter name and example. The description's phrase 'specific DORA article' aligns with but does not add meaning beyond the schema. 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 verb 'Show' and a specific resource: cross-regulation impacts for a given DORA article. It further clarifies the scope by mapping DORA to MiCA and AMLR, which distinguishes it from generic siblings like cross_regulation_check.
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 implies usage for a specific DORA article but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No sibling tools are referenced, so guidance is only implicit.
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.