Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ClevSec EU compliance tools

by one.clevsec
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

MCP tool list and Agent Card report (ClevSec Pro)

mcp_tools_report
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use after mcp_tools_check when the user wants a review report or to see what changed since approval. Pass document (current tools/list response or Agent Card) and optionally previous (the approved version). Returns every flag with an action, a priority, OWASP and MCP Security Audit Kit references, a change comparison (added, removed and changed tools with the changed fields) and an inventory row. 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": {
      "document": "<document>"
    },
    "name": "mcp_tools_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
publicNoA2A only: true if the agent is deliberately public (no authentication by design).
documentYesThe JSON to check: a tools/list response (JSON-RPC response, its result, or the tools array) or an A2A Agent Card.
previousNoOptional: the previously approved version, to compare.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read, so the description's job is to add context — and it does by disclosing the 'Requires ClevSec Pro' entitlement gate and by sketching the report payload (prioritized actions, framework references, change diff, inventory row). It stops short of describing error behavior or limits on the compared document size, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with the usage instruction, followed by parameter guidance and then return contents, with no filler sentences. It is dense and somewhat long, but every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 no output schema and no annotations covering returns, the description carries the burden well by listing the report's components and the change-comparison fields. The main residual gap is what happens when no `previous` is supplied and any size/format constraints on the document.

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%, so `document`, `previous`, and `public` are already documented structurally. The description reinforces that `document` is a current tools/list response or Agent Card and that `previous` is the approved version used for the diff, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('review report' / 'what changed since approval') and explicitly separates this tool from the sibling mcp_tools_check by its position in the workflow. It also enumerates the outputs (flags with actions, priorities, OWASP/MCP references, change comparison, inventory row), so the agent knows exactly what the call produces.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use after mcp_tools_check when the user wants a review report or to see what changed since approval' gives an explicit precondition, a trigger condition, and previously-named alternative. The optional nature of `previous` is stated inline, so there is nothing left to infer about when to include it.

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