Live status of AWS, GCP, Azure cloud providers. DORA Art. 28 third-party ICT risk monitoring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max incidents per provider (default: 10) | |
| provider | No | Provider: aws, gcp, azure, all (default: all) |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the tool returns live status and has a regulatory angle, but it does not disclose that it returns incident lists, data freshness, or absence of side effects. The schema adds some context, but the description itself adds minimal behavioral detail.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The DORA regulatory context is added without bloat, and no schema information is redundantly repeated.
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 read-only tool with two optional parameters, the description provides sufficient context about cloud providers and regulatory relevance. It lacks explicit output format details, but the schema's 'incidents per provider' hints at the data structure, making the tool adequately complete for its simplicity.
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% with both 'limit' and 'provider' fully described. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 tool provides live status of AWS, GCP, and Azure cloud providers. The DORA Art. 28 reference adds regulatory context that distinguishes it from sibling tools like cve_latest or breach_check, showing a specific verb+resource with unique 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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The DORA context implies use for third-party ICT risk monitoring, but it does not mention situations where this tool should be preferred over siblings like provider_risk. Usage is implied rather than stated.
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.
Most tools target distinct DORA areas, but the cluster of CVE/KEV tools (cve_latest, cve_search, kev_check, kev_list) requires careful description reading to avoid misselection. Otherwise, purposes are clearly separated by domain.
All tool names are lowercase snake_case, which is consistent, but the naming style mixes noun-only (cloud_status, threat_actors) and noun-verb (breach_check, cve_search) patterns. Still readable and predictable.
With 15 tools, the set is well-scoped for a DORA compliance server, covering threats, advisories, testing, and third-party risk without excessive overlap or bloat.
The tool surface comprehensively addresses DORA threat monitoring, incident reporting timelines, patch management, and resilience testing. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool for generating incident reports or submitting them, but these are not core to the server's likely purpose.