Skip to main content
Glama

ClevSec EU compliance tools

GDPR data breach: who must be notified?

gdpr_breach_decision
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a personal data breach has happened (data lost, stolen, sent to the wrong person, encrypted by ransomware, accessed without authorisation) to decide whether the GDPR requires notifying the supervisory authority within 72 hours (Art. 33) and the people affected (Art. 34), applying the exceptions. Needs the risk level of the breach: unlikely, risk or high.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
riskYesLikely risk to people's rights and freedoms (EDPB Guidelines 9/2022): consider the type of breach, the sensitivity and volume of the data, how easily people can be identified, how severe the consequences are, and vulnerable people such as children
roleNoController decides why and how data are processed; a processor acts on its behalf
hours_since_awareNoHours since the controller had a reasonable degree of certainty that a breach occurred
data_unintelligibleNoThe affected data were unintelligible to unauthorised people, e.g. state-of-the-art encryption with the key not compromised
individual_contact_disproportionateNoContacting each person would involve disproportionate effort, e.g. no contact details
subsequent_measures_remove_high_riskNoMeasures taken since then ensure the high risk is no longer likely to materialise

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a safe, idempotent read, so the description must carry the substance, and it does: it discloses the two decision branches (authority + affected people) and that exceptions are applied. It does not explain the verdict/output shape, keeping it below 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and then the decision and required input. The parenthetical breach-type list is slightly long but adds recognition value rather than filler, so it earns its place.

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?

For a no-output-schema decision tool, the description supplies the regulatory framing, the required input, and the exceptions it applies, which is enough to call it correctly. It could do more to distinguish itself from the overlapping reporting_deadlines sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter (including the nuanced risk, role, and exception booleans) is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the risk enum values, adding no syntax or interpretation beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 decision verb (decide whether to notify) and the exact resource (a personal data breach), naming Art. 33 supervisory-authority notification and Art. 34 data-subject notification. This clearly separates it from siblings like gdpr_fine_estimate and reporting_deadlines.

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?

The opening trigger condition ('Use when a personal data breach has happened') with concrete examples is explicit and actionable. It gives strong when-to-use context, but never names alternatives or exclusions (e.g. how it relates to reporting_deadlines for the 72h clock), so it stops short of a 5.

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