conductor
Server Details
DORA OS Conductor — 16-tool meta-orchestrator for DORA compliance workflow automation.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- ToolOracle/conductor
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but health_check, oracle_status, and readiness_dashboard overlap in providing health/status information, which could cause confusion for an agent. The descriptions help differentiate their scope (e.g., oracle_status for 16 DORA oracles, readiness_dashboard for 23 oracles + tool count).
All tool names use consistent snake_case, lowercase format, and follow a predictable verb_noun or noun_noun pattern (e.g., board_briefing, react_to_event, onboard_entity). No mixed conventions or irregular naming.
16 tools is appropriate for a DORA compliance and monitoring server covering onboarding, health checks, assessments, gap analysis, remediation, event reactions, and workflows. Each tool has a defined role, and the count is well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set covers core compliance workflows: onboarding, assessments, health status, gap analysis, remediation planning, event reaction, and syncing. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking a tool to manually update individual compliance items, but the workflow and sync tools compensate. Overall, the coverage is strong.
Available Tools
16 toolsboard_briefingCInspect
Executive briefing: readiness score, cloud status, test coverage, deadlines, key risks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, or required permissions. Simply lists content areas.
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?
Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with key terms. No wasted words, though slightly more structure could improve readability.
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 single optional parameter and no output schema, description is minimal but adequately hints at content. However, lack of output format info may leave agent uncertain.
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?
Input schema has one optional parameter entity_id with no description. Description does not mention it, failing to add meaning. Schema coverage is 0%, and description should compensate but does not.
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 the tool provides an executive briefing covering readiness, cloud status, test coverage, deadlines, and risks. It implies action and resource, and is distinguishable from siblings like daily_check or health_check which focus on different scopes.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as full_assessment or health_check. Lacks context about typical use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
daily_checkCInspect
Daily compliance health check: cloud, tests, findings, regulatory changes, CVEs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output nature. 'Health check' implies read-only but not explicitly stated.
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?
Single concise sentence, but overly brief at the expense of critical details. Front-loads the purpose but omits parameter and usage information.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, description should explain return values or what exactly the check entails. It does not, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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 0% and description does not mention the optional entity_id parameter. No explanation of its purpose or impact, leaving agent without necessary guidance.
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's a daily compliance health check covering multiple areas (cloud, tests, findings, regulatory changes, CVEs), providing a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like health_check, which may have similar scope.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like health_check or full_assessment. Missing context on prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
full_assessmentCInspect
Run complete DORA assessment across ALL 16 oracles. Returns aggregated risk score, critical issues, and per-oracle details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses output (aggregated risk score, critical issues, per-oracle details) but does not mention whether the assessment modifies data, requires special permissions, or has side effects. Without annotations, this is insufficient.
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 sentences, no extraneous words. Action verb ('Run') appears first. Every word serves a purpose: scope, resource, and output are clearly stated.
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 complexity of a 'complete DORA assessment' across 16 oracles, the description lacks details on return format, parameter constraints, or any state changes. Without output schema or annotations, the agent has insufficient info to understand tool behavior.
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 1 parameter (entity_id) with no description (0% coverage). The description does not mention the parameter or its purpose, leaving the agent to guess what entity_id refers to. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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?
Clearly states it runs a complete DORA assessment across all 16 oracles, with specific verb 'Run' and resource 'DORA assessment'. The word 'complete' and 'ALL' distinguish it from sibling tools like 'gap_analysis' or 'health_check' which likely focus on specific aspects.
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?
Does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it implies comprehensiveness, it lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or references to sibling tools for comparison. The agent must infer usage from the word 'complete'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
gap_analysisCInspect
Cross-oracle gap analysis: compliance, testing, policies, training.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool modifies state. It implies analysis but does not confirm read-only behavior or output characteristics.
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 extremely concise (a single short phrase), which avoids verbosity but lacks structure and fails to convey necessary details. It is too sparse to be considered well-structured.
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 complexity implied by 'cross-oracle gap analysis' affecting multiple domains, the description is inadequate. No output schema, no parameter details, and no behavioral context; the tool feels underspecified compared to its purpose.
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 single parameter 'entity_id' is completely undocumented in both the schema (0% coverage) and the description. The description adds no meaning about its purpose, allowed values, or whether it is required.
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 mentions 'cross-oracle gap analysis' with areas (compliance, testing, policies, training), giving a specific purpose beyond just the name. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish when to use this over sibling tools like 'full_assessment' or 'health_check', and the term 'cross-oracle' is vague.
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 description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, which is important given the presence of similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
health_checkCInspect
Conductor health + oracle availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It only mentions what is checked (Conductor health, Oracle availability) but not the nature of these checks (e.g., read-only, query, or any side effects) or the response format. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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 very short (5 words) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity; a slightly longer description could include output details or context without being verbose.
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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., status codes, messages) or define 'Conductor' and 'oracle availability'. Without this, the agent may not know how to interpret the results. The description is incomplete for a minimally useful health check tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema covers all needed fields (none). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It correctly implies no inputs are required.
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 'Conductor health + oracle availability' clearly states the tool's purpose: checking the health of Conductor and the availability of Oracle. It is concise and specific, though it does not distinguish from the sibling 'oracle_status'.
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 like 'oracle_status' or 'ping'. The usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
nca_readinessCInspect
BaFin/NCA audit readiness checklist: score, red articles, testing, RoI, training.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior. It only lists output components but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or is destructive. Critical behavioral traits (e.g., what the tool does with entity_id) are missing, leaving the agent uncertain.
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 short (one line) but lacks sentence structure. It uses a colon-separated list which is not ideal for readability. While not overly verbose, it could be more structured without significantly increasing length.
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 presence of similar siblings (e.g., readiness_dashboard, gap_analysis) and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how entity_id is used, or how to interpret the checklist components.
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 input schema has one parameter (entity_id) with no description. The tool description does not clarify the meaning or expected format of entity_id. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no value beyond the parameter name.
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 specifies a clear domain: 'BaFin/NCA audit readiness checklist' and lists key aspects like score, red articles, testing, RoI, training. This distinguishes it from siblings such as 'health_check' or 'gap_analysis' by referencing a specific regulatory context. However, the description is a noun phrase without a verb, making the action implicit (e.g., 'provides' or 'assesses').
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'readiness_dashboard' or 'gap_analysis'. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
obligation_overviewAInspect
All obligation_ids from all oracles in one call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds some behavioral context (returns all IDs in one call) beyond the empty input schema. However, it does not disclose read-only nature or performance implications, though these are reasonable assumptions. Annotations would have helped, but this is adequate for a simple fetch tool.
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?
Single sentence, 7 words, no superfluous information. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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 (zero parameters, trivial output), the description is complete. It fully explains what the tool does and what it returns. Additional context like format or latency is not critical for a tool of this nature.
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?
With no parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the output (obligation IDs) and scope (all oracles), which is valuable beyond the empty schema.
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 tool returns all obligation IDs from all oracles in one call. It uses a specific verb (get implied) and resource (obligation IDs) and distinguishes from siblings like 'oracle_status' or 'full_assessment' which focus on individual status or detailed assessment.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide criteria for selection, such as when to prefer this over 'daily_check' or 'health_check'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
onboard_entityCInspect
Full entity onboarding workflow across all oracles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or permissions. The phrase 'workflow' implies multiple steps but no details.
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 short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary detail. Conciseness is acceptable but at the expense of completeness.
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?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only one undocumented parameter. The description does not explain the workflow process, return values, or usage context, making it inadequate for a complex workflow.
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 single parameter 'entity_id' has no description in the schema, and the description adds no clarification about its role or format. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.
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 specifies 'full entity onboarding workflow across all oracles,' indicating a specific action and scope. However, 'entity' is ambiguous and not defined, preventing a perfect clarity score.
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 siblings like plan_remediation or health_check. The description does not mention prerequisites or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
oracle_statusBInspect
Health status of all 16 DORA OS oracles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, update frequency, or error conditions. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. No wasted words. Extremely concise.
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 zero-parameter tool, the description is nearly complete. It could clarify what 'oracles' are or the output format, but given the low complexity, it is sufficient.
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?
There are no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since no additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.
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 tool returns 'Health status of all 16 DORA OS oracles,' specifying the exact resource and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'health_check' which may have different scope or semantics.
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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'health_check' or 'ping'. The description does not provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pingAInspect
Connectivity test.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description implies a safe, non-destructive operation. It does not disclose potential behaviors like timeouts, error responses, or network requirements.
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?
A single two-word phrase is maximally concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary.
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 simple no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. No additional details are required.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but with zero parameters, baseline is 4 and no additional value is needed.
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 'Connectivity test' clearly states purpose as testing connectivity, with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like health_check or board_briefing.
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 on when to use this tool versus others. In a server with many related tools, an agent lacks context on when ping is preferred over health_check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
plan_remediationBInspect
Given current gaps, generate prioritized remediation plan with actions, oracles, urgency, deadlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lists the output components (actions, oracles, urgency, deadlines), which gives some behavioral insight. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or whether it modifies state. The term 'oracles' is ambiguous without further explanation.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the tool's core function and context. Every word adds value; there is no redundant information.
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?
Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description omits critical context: how 'current gaps' are obtained, the role of 'entity_id', and the tool's dependency on prior analyses. Without this, an agent may misuse the tool.
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 input schema has one parameter 'entity_id' with no description, and the tool description does not explain its purpose or format. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 tool generates a 'prioritized remediation plan' with specific elements (actions, oracles, urgency, deadlines), and implies it uses 'current gaps' as input. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'gap_analysis' which likely only identifies gaps. However, it doesn't explicitly state the relationship to gap analysis.
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 vs. alternatives (e.g., gap_analysis, health_check). There is no mention of prerequisites or whether it should be called after specific other tools. A usage context is essential for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
react_to_eventBInspect
React to compliance event: cve, law_change, cloud_incident, breach, sanctions_hit, audit_notice, supply_chain_disruption, nis2_incident, contract_issue, tax_deadline, medical_device_alert, employee_issue. Auto-dispatches to relevant oracles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| detail | No | Event details (CVE ID, provider name, regulation name, etc.) | |
| entity_id | No | ||
| event_type | No | cve|law_change|cloud_incident|breach|sanctions_hit|audit_notice|supply_chain_disruption|nis2_incident|contract_issue|tax_deadline|medical_device_alert|employee_issue |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that the tool 'auto-dispatches to relevant oracles', giving some insight into its internal behavior. However, it doesn't describe side effects (e.g., creation of records, notifications), idempotency, or error handling. With no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.
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 event type list immediately after the verb. No extraneous words or 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?
The description explains the core behavior but lacks details on output, return values, or how to interpret results. For a tool with no output schema and three parameters, the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to understand its function, but not fully 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 67% (two out of three parameters have descriptions). The description reiterates the event types listed in the schema but adds no new details about 'detail' or 'entity_id'. It meets the baseline for good schema coverage but does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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 names specific event types and uses 'react to' as the action, making the resource and purpose clear. However, 'react' is vague compared to more precise verbs like 'process' or 'handle', and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'plan_remediation' or 'run_workflow'.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The list of event types implies applicable scenarios, but there are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'board_briefing' and 'full_assessment' might overlap, but no comparison is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
readiness_dashboardCInspect
Health status of all 23 oracles + total tool count. System-wide monitoring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | No | Optional |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description implies a read-only aggregation, but does not disclose whether it performs any side effects, what 'health status' entails, or how data is sampled. Minimal behavioral context beyond the title.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It could be longer to add context, but it avoids 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?
Despite having a clear purpose, the description omits details about what 'health status' means, how to interpret results, and the role of the optional parameter. No output schema or usage notes, making it incomplete for an agent to use optimally.
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 sole parameter 'entity_id' is described only as 'Optional' in the schema, with no explanation in the description of how it filters or affects output. Schema coverage is 100% but the parameter description is insufficient.
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 it provides health status of all 23 oracles and total tool count, with 'system-wide monitoring' as the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'oracle_status' which likely targets individual oracles.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'health_check' or 'oracle_status' could overlap, but description doesn't specify scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
run_workflowCInspect
Execute a predefined multi-step workflow across oracles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional query for law_change_response workflow | |
| workflow | No | Workflow ID from workflow_library | |
| entity_id | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like execution type (sync/async), side effects, or requirements. It only says 'execute', which is insufficient.
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 very concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices essential information for brevity. It is front-loaded with the action but lacks detail.
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?
The description does not explain what a 'workflow' is, what 'oracles' are, or what the output or result of execution is. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, more information is needed.
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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 67%, but the description does not explain the purpose of each parameter, especially 'entity_id' which lacks a 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 clearly states the tool executes a predefined multi-step workflow across oracles. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'workflow_library' (which likely lists workflows) and 'react_to_event' (reactive). However, it lacks specificity about the nature of workflows.
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 like 'react_to_event' or 'daily_check'. The description does not mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sync_allBInspect
Trigger all sync_to_ampel across TestOracle + CloudOracle. Updates AmpelOracle with latest data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals it is a write operation ('Updates AmpelOracle') but lacks details on authorization, idempotency, latency, or side effects.
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 very concise with two sentences and no extraneous words. It front-loads the action. However, it lacks structure for parameter information.
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 one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should cover purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters. It covers purpose but not usage or parameter semantics, and behavior is only minimally addressed.
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 input schema has a single optional parameter 'entity_id' with no description, and the description offers no explanation of its purpose or usage. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but does not.
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 tool triggers all sync_to_ampel across TestOracle and CloudOracle to update AmpelOracle. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying a bulk sync operation.
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 the tool is for triggering all sync_to_ampel operations, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use or avoid it compared to alternatives like individual sync tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
workflow_libraryAInspect
List all available predefined workflows with descriptions and step counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description mentions it lists workflows but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation or other behavioral traits.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, entirely front-loaded with essential information.
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 simple list tool, the description gives key details (descriptions and step counts). However, no output schema exists, so a bit more detail on return format would be helpful.
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?
No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage). Description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 lists all available predefined workflows with descriptions and step counts, distinguishing it from siblings like run_workflow (which executes workflows) and assessment tools (which perform specific analyses).
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?
Usage is implied as a discovery step before running a workflow, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!