Skip to main content
Glama

ClevSec EU compliance tools

GDPR data flow compliance review (ClevSec Pro)

data_flow_review
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use after data_flow_record_check for a compliance review of each personal data flow: legal basis, special category and children's data, consent and legitimate interest records, retention, international transfer tools and transfer impact assessments, and DPIA need, with an action, GDPR article and 30/60/90-day roadmap. Requires ClevSec Pro.

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": {
      "flows": "<flows>"
    },
    "name": "data_flow_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context by disclosing the ClevSec Pro requirement and the output content: action, GDPR article, and 30/60/90-day roadmap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads usage with 'Use after data_flow_record_check' and keeps the definition to one dense sentence. The enumerated review dimensions are useful, though the sentence is long and could be easier to scan.

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?

Covers the tool's purpose, predecessor, licensing requirement, and high-level output, but leaves the complex flows input structure under-explained and has no output schema to fall back on. Adequate but with clear input-side gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter is flows, and the description does not explain the expected flow object structure, required fields, allowed values, or the 100-item limit. With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description needed to compensate but largely does not.

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?

States a specific review activity for personal data flows and distinguishes it from data_flow_record_check by positioning it as the follow-up compliance review. The enumerated review areas make the tool's scope concrete.

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?

Explicitly says to use it after data_flow_record_check, which gives clear sequencing. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives among other GDPR tools such as gdpr_dpia_screening or gdpr_checklist_assessment.

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.

Resources