Check per-control coverage for HIPAA, PCI-DSS, SOC 2, or GDPR over an ISO date range to verify whether required controls are covered.
[READ] Per-control coverage for a framework over a period (are we covered?).
Args: framework: hipaa / pci_dss / soc2 / gdpr. since / until: ISO timestamps bounding the reporting period.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | ||
| until | No | ||
| framework | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's '[READ]' tag adds little. It discloses the aggregation at per-control granularity and the period scoping, which is useful context, but omits output format and return shape details beyond what annotations cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by an args block. Efficient and structured. The '[READ]' prefix is redundant given readOnlyHint, a minor waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations covering return shape, the description could say more about what a coverage summary contains (counts, per-control status?). It gives enough to invoke correctly but leaves the result format to inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does describe all three: framework's valid values (hipaa/pci_dss/soc2/gdpr) and the since/until ISO timestamp bounds. It doesn't note that since/until are optional or their defaults, so slightly short of 5.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb+resource: 'Per-control coverage for a framework over a period'. The [READ] tag and parenthetical '(are we covered?)' make the intent unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name gap_analysis or control_evidence as siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(are we covered?)' hints at the question this answers, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. An agent must infer from sibling names like gap_analysis and control_evidence when to prefer this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.