Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Italian Data Protection MCP

Italian Data Protection MCP

by Ansvar-Systems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

it_dp_about

Retrieve metadata about the Italian Data Protection MCP server: version, data source, coverage, and tool list. Use it to verify server details before compliance searches.

Instructions

Return metadata about this MCP server: version, data source, coverage, and tool list.

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": "it_dp_about"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read ('Return metadata') and names the returned fields, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but for a static introspection endpoint those are minor.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the enumerated contents following in a compact list. No wasted words.

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?

With zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: it identifies the resource and enumerates the return fields. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There is no parameter semantics to document and the description correctly avoids describing any.

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 and resource ('Return metadata about this MCP server') and enumerates the exact content of the response (version, data source, coverage, tool list). This is unambiguously distinct from the sibling search/get/list data-access tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The purpose implies usage (discovering server info / available tools), but the description never says when to call it or when not to. For a zero-parameter introspection tool usage is largely self-evident, so implied guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools