NZXplorer (Remote)

get_director_risk

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get composite risk score (0-100) for an NZX director. Aggregates failure rate, litigation, regulatory actions, professional disciplinary, offshore exposure, and overboarding into a single weighted score. Use when assessing director suitability, governance risk, or board appointment due diligence.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_director_risk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	Director slug (e.g. "rob-campbell").

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	The tool payload. Null when the call did not produce one — read meta.availability_status to find out why, and do not treat null as zero, empty or "none found".
`meta`	Yes
`tool`	Yes	Tool that produced this result.
`schema_version`	Yes	Envelope contract version. Bumps only on a breaking shape change.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / slug / description

Previous value: -"Director slug (e.g. \"rob-campbell\"). Use get_directors with search param to find the slug first."New value: +"Director slug (e.g. \"rob-campbell\")."

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations don't carry: the score is a weighted composite over six specific inputs on a bounded 0-100 scale. It does not say how sparse or missing component data is handled, which is the main remaining behavioral question for a scoring tool.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero redundancy: what it returns, what feeds it, when to reach for it. The scale and composite nature are front-loaded before the use cases.

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?

With an output schema, annotations, and a fully documented single parameter, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to select and call it. It stops short of explaining score interpretation or weighting, which would matter for a risk-scoring tool but is partially offloaded to the output schema.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage including a format example ("rob-campbell"), so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about slug resolution, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (composite 0-100 risk score for an NZX director) and clarifies it is an aggregate of six named component signals, which implicitly separates it from the single-signal siblings like get_litigation_history or get_overboarding. It never explicitly names which sibling it replaces, so an agent weighing it against get_director_due_diligence or get_director_workload still has to infer the boundary.

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?

"Use when assessing director suitability, governance risk, or board appointment due diligence" gives concrete usage contexts rather than vague intent. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so the when-not-to-use case (e.g. when you need the underlying litigation detail rather than the score) is left unstated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All NZXplorer (Remote) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?