DORA Art. 5-12 ICT risk management compliance check. 8 articles assessed with specific requirements per article.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| learning_evolving | No | ||
| response_recovery | No | ||
| detection_measures | No | ||
| ict_risk_framework | No | ||
| communication_plans | No | ||
| ict_asset_inventory | No | ||
| protection_prevention | No |
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that 8 articles are assessed, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, returns a report, requires permissions, or has side effects. The 'check' likely implies a read operation, but this is not confirmed, leaving significant transparency gaps.
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 with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the detail about article count. While it could be structured with more user-facing guidance, this is concise and efficient, earning a high score.
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 7 undocumented boolean parameters, no output schema, and 11 sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain what the parameters represent, what the output looks like, or how to interpret the results. The tool likely requires more context for an agent to use it correctly, and this description barely scratches the surface.
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 contains 7 boolean parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description provides no mapping or explanation for any of them. The mention of '8 articles' conflicts with the 7 parameters, creating confusion rather than clarity. The parameters are entirely semantically opaque, and the description does not 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 clearly identifies the tool as a compliance check for DORA Articles 5-12 on ICT risk management. It specifies both the regulatory reference and the subject area, distinguishing it from siblings like nis2_compliance or iso27001_gap. The verb phrase 'compliance check' and the number of assessed articles provide concrete 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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when needing to assess compliance against DORA ICT risk management requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. This gives moderate guidance but lacks clear exclusions or comparative context.
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.
Each tool focuses on a distinct security domain: attack surface, CVE scoring, compliance frameworks (DORA, ISO, NIS2), incident response, phishing, risk matrix, metrics, and threat landscape. There is no functional overlap that would confuse an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case convention and are descriptive noun phrases. The pattern is predictable, though it does not use a uniform verb_noun structure, which is a minor stylistic deviation.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a cybersecurity compliance and risk platform. Each tool adds meaningful functionality without redundancy, keeping the set manageable and purposeful.
The toolset covers major compliance assessments (DORA, ISO 27001, NIS2), incident response, risk analysis, and threat intelligence. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated business continuity or broader policy generation tool, but the core security lifecycle is well represented.