scenario_library
DORA-relevant test scenario library (10 scenarios).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| severity | No |
resilienceoracle
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only provides the content type and count, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how the severity parameter filters results, or what the return format looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief and free of redundancy, but it is under-specified, reading as a label rather than a functional specification. It is concise but not sufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain what the library returns and how severity works. It does neither, offering only the DORA relevance and scenario count, which is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines an optional severity parameter with an enum, but the description never mentions severity or its effect. With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter semantics are completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource as a 'DORA-relevant test scenario library' with 10 scenarios, but lacks a verb specifying the actual operation (e.g., list, retrieve, filter). It distinguishes from sibling tools only via its noun-phrase label, not by stating what it does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the sibling analysis tools, nor any context about selecting scenarios or prerequisites. The description is entirely silent on usage scenarios.
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
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency4/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.