Set Business Impact Analysis data — RTO, RPO, MTPD, financial impact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rpo_hours | No | ||
| rto_hours | No | ||
| system_id | Yes | ||
| mtpd_hours | No | ||
| dependencies | No | ||
| recovery_priority | No | ||
| regulatory_impact | No | ||
| customers_affected | No | ||
| reputational_impact | No | ||
| financial_impact_per_hour | 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, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation ('Set') but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing data, requires the system to exist, validates input, or what side effects it may have. No return value or error behavior is described, leaving significant gaps.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words, which is efficient. However, for a tool with 10 parameters and no schema descriptions, it is far too sparse; it sacrifices essential detail for brevity, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
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 high complexity (10 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and behavioral transparency. The sibling tools also create a need to clarify how set_bia fits into the BCM workflow, but no such context is provided.
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% parameter description coverage, and the description only maps a few acronyms (RTO, RPO, MTPD, financial impact) to some of the 10 parameters. It does not explain units (e.g., rpo_hours), semantics of dependencies, recovery_priority, regulatory_impact, customers_affected, or reputational_impact, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.
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 the specific verb 'Set' with the resource 'Business Impact Analysis data' and explicitly names key fields (RTO, RPO, MTPD, financial impact). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_system (system registration) and rto_rpo_check (checking RPO/RTO). Minor ambiguity exists about whether 'Set' implies an upsert or update, but the core purpose is unmistakable.
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. The description simply states what it does, without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where sibling tools like register_system or recovery_status would be preferred. This is a complete absence of usage context.
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.