Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ClevSec EU compliance tools

by one.clevsec
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

DORA remediation plan (ClevSec Pro)

dora_remediation_plan
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use after dora_gap_assessment when the user wants a plan to close their DORA gaps. Turns the same answers into every gap with a recommended action, a priority, the DORA article and a 30/60/90-day roadmap (ICT risk management and incident management first). 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": {
      "answers": "<answers>"
    },
    "name": "dora_remediation_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesQuestion id to answer, e.g. {"p1_1": "yes", "p2_3": "partial"}. Unanswered questions count as gaps.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the output structure (per-gap action, priority, DORA article, 30/60/90-day roadmap), the prioritization order (ICT and incident management first), and the ClevSec Pro entitlement requirement.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then output content, then the entitlement caveat. Nothing is redundant, though the middle sentence is dense with a parenthetical that could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the shape of the returned plan, the prioritization logic and the access requirement. An agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the answer-id format and the 'unanswered counts as a gap' rule, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds genuine meaning by telling the agent the parameter is 'the same answers' consumed by dora_gap_assessment, i.e. reuse the prior payload rather than re-derive it.

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 verb+resource ('remediation plan' for DORA gaps) and immediately anchors it to a sibling workflow ('Use after dora_gap_assessment'). The framework qualifier (DORA) cleanly separates it from the near-identical iso27001_remediation_plan, nis2_remediation_plan and gdpr_remediation_plan siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger and precondition: use after dora_gap_assessment, when the user wants a plan to close gaps. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g. when no gap assessment exists yet), but the sequencing constraint covers the main routing decision.

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

All ClevSec EU compliance tools toolsInspect
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