export_its
Export Register of Information in ITS-compliant format for supervisory reporting.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Export format |
registeroracle
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Export' without disclosing side effects, return format, permissions, or whether the export is generated as a file or streamed. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably triggers a data export.
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?
A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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 provides adequate context about the tool's purpose. It could benefit from a note about what data is included in the export or how the output is delivered, but the current level is sufficient for basic use.
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 100% for the single 'format' parameter, including an enum of 'json' and 'csv'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond saying the export is ITS-compliant, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 action (Export), the resource (Register of Information), and the purpose (supervisory reporting) with a specific format (ITS-compliant). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on checks, provider management, and analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for supervisory reporting' provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that the usage context is obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a clear, distinct function: CRUD operations, analytics, validation, and export. There is no meaningful overlap between gap_analysis and validate_roi—one identifies data quality gaps while the other formally checks ITS compliance.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (list_providers, get_provider, export_its, validate_roi), but a few use noun_noun or noun_verb forms (concentration_risk, gap_analysis, ctpp_check, health_check). The naming is readable and consistent in style (snake_case), but not uniformly verb-led.
Tool Count5/5
The 10 tools are well-scoped for a DORA Register of Information domain, covering list/get/register, multiple analysis perspectives, validation, export, and health check. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the core lifecycle (create, read, update via register_provider, list, export, validate) and adds useful analysis tools. The only notable gap is a delete_provider tool for removing deprecated or erroneous entries, but this is a minor omission.