Skip to main content
Glama

conductor

by io.tooloracle

react_to_event

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailNoEvent details (CVE ID, provider name, regulation name, etc.)
entity_idNo
event_typeNocve|law_change|cloud_incident|breach|sanctions_hit|audit_notice|supply_chain_disruption|nis2_incident|contract_issue|tax_deadline|medical_device_alert|employee_issue

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'Auto-dispatches to relevant oracles' but does not disclose read/write behavior, auth requirements, destructiveness, or side effects beyond dispatching.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and efficiently includes the list of event types. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema, 3 parameters, no annotations. The description covers core purpose and behavior but lacks return value info, error handling, prerequisites, or further behavioral context. Adequate but not complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 67% (detail and event_type have descriptions; entity_id does not). The description adds context by listing event types inline but does not compensate for the missing entity_id description.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's action ('React to compliance event') and specifies the exact event types (cve, law_change, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are other compliance functions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when a listed compliance event occurs and mentions auto-dispatch to oracles, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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

All conductor toolsInspect
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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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).

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources