PolicyOracle - 12 policy lifecycle tools: drafting, approval, distribution, attestation.
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.
Average 2.6/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., register_policy vs. version_control), but health_check and ping are similarly for connectivity, and coverage_map and policy_gap_check both address coverage, causing slight confusion.
Naming style is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (list_policies, register_policy), others use noun phrases (approval_tracker, compliance_score) or single words (ping, attestation). No uniform pattern.
12 tools is appropriate for a policy management server, covering key tasks from registration to compliance without being excessive.
Covers listing, registration, versioning, compliance, gap analysis, and reviews, but lacks update and delete operations for policies, leaving a notable gap in lifecycle management.
approval_trackerCInspectPolicy approval workflow status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only nature via the word 'status', but does not state whether permissions are required, whether any data is mutated, or what the response looks like. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects or access needs.
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 phrase with no wasted words. It is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of informativeness. However, the conciseness dimension rewards lack of verbosity, so this scores above average.
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 the tool's simplicity, the description is too vague. It does not explain what kind of status information is provided, how to interpret results, or when in a workflow it would be used. An agent lacks the context to decide whether this tool is relevant.
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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, and there are no parameter semantics that need clarification beyond the 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 'Policy approval workflow status' is a noun phrase, not an explicit action. It vaguely indicates the domain and that it provides status, but it does not specify what the tool does (e.g., get, list, check) or how it differs from siblings like compliance_score or health_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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool should be selected over the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
attestationCInspectRecord policy attestation. Set add=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| add | No | ||
| date | No | ||
| role | No | ||
| policy_id | No | ||
| attested_by | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation via 'Record' but does not mention side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without annotation support.
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 short (two brief sentences), which initially seems concise. However, the brevity results in under-specification for a tool with five parameters, making it inadequate rather than efficiently 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?
The tool has five parameters with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description provides almost no contextual information about return values, prerequisites, or edge cases. It is far from complete for such a parameter-rich 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 description adds meaning for the 'add' parameter by instructing to set it to true, but the remaining four parameters (date, role, policy_id, attested_by) are entirely unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to sufficiently compensate for the missing parameter semantics.
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 action with a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('policy attestation'), so the core purpose is understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like policy_gap_check or compliance_score, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only gives an instruction to 'Set add=true', with no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compliance_scoreDInspectOverall policy compliance scoring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about whether the tool is read-only, mutating, requires registered policies, or returns a score, and lacks any context about side effects or limitations.
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 but under-specified, consisting of a short noun phrase rather than a complete, informative sentence. It does not earn its place because it is tautological and provides no additional value.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description is the sole source of context. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand what the tool does, when to invoke it, or what to expect from it.
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, so the schema is empty and the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter information, but there are no parameters to describe, so it does not need 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 'Overall policy compliance scoring' is a vague noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name. It lacks a specific verb and resource, and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like policy_gap_check or coverage_map.
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 its alternatives. The description gives no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
coverage_mapCInspectMap policies to DORA/RTS article requirements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what the output format is, or any expected side effects. The description merely restates the function without revealing behavior.
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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the key action and target, achieving maximum conciseness.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns or how the mapping behaves. It does not disclose the output format or any additional context, making the description incomplete for a tool with this level of structural 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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter meanings need explanation, and the description is sufficient given the absence of parameters.
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 'Map policies to DORA/RTS article requirements' uses a specific verb ('map') and clearly identifies the resources and target. It is clear and likely distinguishes the tool from siblings like policy_gap_check or compliance_score, though it does not explicitly differentiate it.
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. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or context such as 'use this when you need a mapping of all policies to article requirements.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
health_checkCInspectServer status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Server status.' does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what it returns, or any side effects. The agent has no basis to infer safety or expected output.
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?
At two words, the description is technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than effectively structured. It is a fragment with no sentence structure or additional context, similar to the 'Process' example that scored 2 for under-specification.
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 'server status' returns or means. It does not clarify the output format, success/failure behavior, or typical use cases, making the tool incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
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 an empty schema with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details. The description makes no misleading claims about parameters.
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 'Server status.' is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It vaguely indicates the tool concerns server health but fails to specify an action like 'check' or 'retrieve.' It does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'ping,' so the purpose remains ambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ping' or 'coverage_map.' There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_policiesAInspectList policies with optional status filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a behavioral detail by specifying 'optional status filter,' which informs the agent that filtering is available. However, it does not disclose what happens without the filter (e.g., returns all policies), the format of the output, or any edge cases like invalid status values. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.
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, succinct sentence that front-loads the core operation ('List policies') and immediately follows with the optional modifier. There is no redundant information or filler. Every word earns its place.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it tells the agent what the tool does and the available filtering option. It does not explicitly state the return type, but 'list' implies a collection, and the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for additional context. The lack of sibling differentiation is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 0% description coverage and only defines 'status' as a string without any meaning. The description compensates by labeling it an 'optional status filter,' which clarifies that the parameter is not required and that its purpose is to filter results. However, it does not enumerate valid status values or explain the matching behavior, leaving some ambiguity.
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 operation (list) and the resource (policies), with an optional scope (status filter). The verb 'list' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'register_policy' (which implies creation) and 'compliance_score' (which implies calculation). This is a specific and unambiguous purpose statement.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any contexts where another tool would be more appropriate, nor does it compare with sibling tools such as 'policy_gap_check' or 'approval_tracker'. The usage context is only implied by the word 'list'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
obligation_mapDInspectPolicy obligations DORA-POL-01 to POL-04, 12 RTS policies, cross-jurisdiction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it does not describe side effects, return values, permissions, or any operational characteristics. It only scopes the content area. This falls far short of what is needed.
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, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It consists of a fragment listing policy names, lacking a verb or complete sentence. It does not convey what the tool does, so brevity is not a virtue here.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameters, the description must fully explain the tool's purpose and behavior. It does neither. Even for a simple mapping tool, the description is severely incomplete.
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 is empty with 100% coverage. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter details, but none are 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?
The description does not state what the tool does. It merely lists policy identifiers ('DORA-POL-01 to POL-04, 12 RTS policies, cross-jurisdiction') without a verb or resource indicating an action. The name 'obligation_map' hints at mapping, but the description itself is a noun phrase, not a function statement.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like coverage_map or policy_gap_check. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description gives no indication of the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pingBInspectConnectivity test.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but 'Connectivity test' is nearly a tautology for 'ping.' It does not disclose the type of connectivity tested, return values, side effects (e.g., network requests), or error handling behavior.
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—just two words—with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but it is very sparse and could benefit from at least a sentence for context.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core purpose, but does not describe the expected result (e.g., success/failure, latency) or any operational notes, leaving some ambiguity.
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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and no compensation 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?
The description 'Connectivity test' clearly communicates the tool's function as a network/database connectivity check. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools, which are focused on policy and compliance management, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'test' or 'check' in a full sentence.
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. There is no mention of suitable contexts, prerequisites, or conditions under which another sibling tool would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
policy_gap_checkBInspectCheck coverage against 12 RTS-required ICT policies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a non-mutating 'check' but does not state the output format, how results are presented, or whether any side effects occur (e.g., logging). This is a significant gap in transparency.
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 with no redundant wording. Every word adds meaning, making it highly efficient and appropriately sized.
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 low complexity, the description lacks essential context about what the output means (e.g., a list of gaps, a pass/fail percentage) and when this check is relevant. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of this information and fails to provide it.
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, so the schema trivially covers all parameter semantics. As no parameter explanations are needed, the description is adequate; 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('check') and explicit resource ('coverage against 12 RTS-required ICT policies'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like coverage_map or list_policies. The exact list of policies adds precision.
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 such as coverage_map or compliance_score. The description does not include any context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
register_policyCInspectRegister an ICT security policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| owner | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| policy_id | No | ||
| department | No | ||
| approved_by | No | ||
| next_review | No | ||
| policy_name | Yes | ||
| policy_type | No | ||
| review_date | No | ||
| dora_article | No | ||
| approval_date | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Register an ICT security policy' without indicating whether this creates a new record, overwrites existing data, triggers notifications, requires special permissions, or how errors are handled.
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 clear sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and concise, but its extreme brevity means it stops short of providing useful details, slightly lowering the 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 tool's complexity (14 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly inadequate. It lacks essential information about the registration process, return values, side effects, and parameter semantics, making it nearly useless for an agent to invoke correctly.
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%, meaning the description must compensate for missing parameter meanings. It fails to mention any of the 14 parameters, leaving the agent to guess what values like 'status', 'policy_type', or 'owner' represent. The required parameter 'policy_name' is not even explicitly called out.
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 uses a specific verb 'Register' and identifies the resource as 'ICT security policy,' making the core action clear. It distinguishes from sibling read tools like list_policies, though it doesn't elaborate on what 'register' entails.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Sibling tools like version_control or approval_tracker might be more appropriate for updating or approving policies, but no such comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
review_scheduleCInspectPolicy review cycle — overdue and upcoming.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides no information about side effects, read-only nature, data source, return format, or any operational characteristics. The agent has no basis to understand what invoking this tool will do beyond the vague concept of a review cycle.
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, consisting of a single short phrase. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, and the key terms 'overdue and upcoming' are front-loaded. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, which slightly reduces clarity.
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 and no annotations, so the description should explain what the agent can expect to receive. 'Policy review cycle — overdue and upcoming' gives only a high-level topic and does not clarify whether the result is a list, counts, dates, or next steps. Given the sibling tools (e.g., compliance_score, coverage_map), more context is needed to understand this tool's specific role.
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, so the schema is trivially complete. The baseline score is 4 because there are no parameters to document. The description adds no parameter-related information, but none 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?
The description 'Policy review cycle — overdue and upcoming.' indicates the tool's domain (policy reviews) and that it covers overdue and upcoming items, but lacks an action verb or explicit resource. It is somewhat vague and does not clearly distinguish from siblings like list_policies or compliance_score, though it hints at a scheduling-focused purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like approval_tracker or policy_gap_check. The description mentions overdue and upcoming items, implying it might be used for tracking review dates, but no explicit when-to-use or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
version_controlCInspectTrack policy versions. Set new_version to bump.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy_id | Yes | ||
| new_version | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not state whether this is a read or write operation, what side effects occur, or what happens when new_version is omitted.
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 fluff, but it is under-specified. It achieves brevity at the expense of necessary 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 tool with 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too brief. It lacks sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly, including the meaning of the required parameter.
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 documents two parameters with no descriptions. The description explains the role of new_version ('to bump') but says nothing about policy_id, which is required. With 0% schema coverage, this 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 identifies policy versions as the resource and indicates version bumping via 'new_version'. It is clear but the verb 'track' is somewhat vague, and it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.
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 or not use this tool. The instruction 'Set new_version to bump' is a usage hint but does not provide context or alternatives.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.