ClevSec EU compliance tools

GDPR compliance checklist

gdpr_checklist_assessment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use to check how far an organisation is with GDPR compliance, or to list what GDPR requires in practice. Call without input to get the 48 checklist items in 8 areas (lawfulness, transparency and rights, minimisation and retention, security, breaches, processors, accountability, international transfers), each with its article. Call with the ids done (and optional items not applicable) to get the completion score and the open items.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gdpr_checklist_assessment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`done`	No	Ids of the items already in place
`not_applicable`	No	Ids of optional items that do not apply (only items marked optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish the safe, read-only, idempotent profile, and the description adds substantive return-value context: 48 items across 8 named areas, each with its article, plus completion score and open items. It doesn't say how the ids look or how scoring is computed, but with no output schema the description does most of the heavy lifting on results.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by the two call modes in order of use. The parenthetical area list is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what content to expect.

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 read-only, two-parameter checklist tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: purpose, both modes, and expected return content. The only gap is item-id format, which neither schema nor description specifies.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both arrays. The description nonetheless adds meaning by explaining the causal link between the parameters and the output (

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?

The description names a specific verb ('check', 'list') and resource ('GDPR compliance'), and even enumerates the eight checklist areas. The two operating modes (bare call = item catalogue, parameterised call = scoring) are stated explicitly, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns in each case.

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?

It clearly states when to use it ('to check how far an organisation is with GDPR compliance, or to list what GDPR requires in practice') and how the presence/absence of input selects between the two modes. It doesn't distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like dora_checklist or nis2_gap_assessment, though GDPR framing makes the domain clear.

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 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?