validate_roi
Validate entire Register of Information against DORA ITS requirements. Checks all mandatory fields, exit plans for critical providers, LEI coverage, etc.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
registeroracle
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the types of checks performed (mandatory fields, exit plans, LEI coverage), implying a read-only validation action. However, it does not explain output format, side effects, or any prerequisites, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then provides concrete examples of checks. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.
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?
The tool lacks annotations and an output schema, so the description is the sole source of context. It adequately defines the validation scope but does not mention return values, success/failure behavior, or any additional context needed for full usage. This leaves it slightly incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter information to add. According to the baseline for 0 params (score 4), the description appropriately doesn't attempt to add parameter semantics.
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 purpose: validating the entire Register of Information against DORA ITS requirements. It uses a specific verb ('Validate') and resource, and lists concrete checks (mandatory fields, exit plans, LEI coverage), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gap_analysis 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.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool — when a comprehensive validation against DORA ITS is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous.
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.