Validate crisis communication plan elements (Art. 11(7)).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| media_handling | No | ||
| escalation_matrix | No | ||
| communication_plan | No | ||
| crisis_team_defined | No | ||
| crisis_drill_conducted | No | ||
| internal_communication | No | ||
| customer_notification_process | No | ||
| regulator_notification_process | 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?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Validate' implies a read-only checking operation, but there is no mention of whether it modifies data, requires permissions, returns a pass/fail result, or produces a report. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no 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 a single, focused sentence that provides the core purpose without redundant wording. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key verb and resource.
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 eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only states the high-level validation purpose. It fails to describe the return value, how validation results are presented, or how the boolean inputs are interpreted, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool effectively.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the eight boolean parameters. While the parameter names (e.g., media_handling, escalation_matrix) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning about what true/false signifies or how these elements relate to the validation. The description only loosely ties them to 'crisis communication plan elements'.
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 action ('Validate') and the resource ('crisis communication plan elements') with a specific regulatory reference (Art. 11(7)), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like bcm_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.
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 its siblings, nor any conditions or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without explaining the appropriate context or alternative tools.
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 targets a distinct function: registration, BIA setting, test logging, readiness status, specific compliance checks, and evidence collection. Even the check-type tools (bcm_gap_analysis, crisis_plan_check, rto_rpo_check) address clearly separated aspects.
All names use lowercase with underscores, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (register_system, set_bia, test_register). A few noun-only names (evidence_bundle, scenario_library, recovery_status) deviate slightly, but the style remains consistent and readable.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a BCM/DR compliance server. Each tool serves a necessary part of the workflow—system registration, BIA, testing, checks, and evidence—without redundancy.
The server covers the core BCM lifecycle: register systems, set BIA, run tests, check compliance, and bundle evidence. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for systems or BIA), but these are workaround-able using set_bia and are not critical for the stated purpose.