CSRD Compliance MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.2.4
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a unique and clearly defined purpose: classification, materiality, enforcement, emissions, iXBRL, and standards listing. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., classify_entity, list_esrs_standards), making them predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server covers the key aspects of CSRD compliance without being bloated. The count is well-suited for its advisory purpose.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover the core compliance workflow (classification, materiality, enforcement, climate, tagging, standards). However, it lacks readiness checks for other ESRS topics (e.g., social, governance), which is a minor gap.
Average 4.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 31 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 7, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: it declares read-only, stateless, idempotent, no side effects, authentication requirements (free vs. pro), rate limits (10/day free), error handling (structured errors), and data privacy. This is exceptionally thorough and goes well beyond basic expectations.
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 description is well-structured with clear sections (Behaviors, When to use, Args, Behavioral Transparency). It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, there is some repetition (e.g., 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' overlap) and the Args section could be omitted if schema descriptions were sufficient.
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?
Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema shown, the description provides adequate context: it explains the return values (first reporting FY, report year, ESRS standards), behavioral transparency, usage guidelines. Missing elements include differentiation from sibling tools and more concrete parameter semantics, but overall it is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. The Args section provides one-line descriptions for each parameter, but they are vague and uninformative (e.g., 'The employees to analyze or process' for all parameters). No clarification on how values affect classification or constraints, leaving significant gaps.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Classify when the entity must first report under CSRD.' It specifies the verb 'classify' and the resource 'when the entity must first report under CSRD', and mentions the outputs (first reporting FY, report year, ESRS standards). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like double_materiality_assessment or ghg_emissions_readiness.
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 description includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing clear guidance on appropriate contexts (e.g., gap analysis, readiness checks) and explicitly warns against using as legal advice. However, it does not mention alternative tools from the same server for similar tasks, which would further enhance guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses read-only, stateless, idempotent behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, and data privacy practices—far exceeding typical annotation coverage.
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 description is well-organized with sections, but there is redundancy between the 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' sections, which repeat several points. The 'Args' section is brief. Overall, it is reasonably concise but could be tightened.
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?
The description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and most operational details. The output schema exists but is not shown; description does not explain return values, but that is acceptable per rules. The main gap is the weak parameter documentation, which slightly detracts from completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The only parameter, api_key, is described as 'The api key to analyze or process,' which is vague. Behavioral transparency mentions it for pro tiers, but the parameter description itself lacks detail on purpose, format, or impact.
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 starts with a clear, specific statement: 'Current CSRD enforcement phase-in schedule + Member State transposition status.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like classify_entity or double_materiality_assessment, which cover different compliance aspects.
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 description includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing context for compliance assessment and explicitly warning against substituting legal counsel. However, it does not directly compare with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this one over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Provides a comprehensive 'Behavioral Transparency' section covering side effects (read-only, stateless), authentication, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and data privacy. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and meets it excellently.
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 description is well-structured with clear sections, and the first sentence immediately states the purpose. However, it is somewhat lengthy; some behavioral details could be condensed without losing value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Behavioral transparency is thorough. However, parameter semantics are weak (0% schema coverage, no compensation in description), leaving gaps for the agent to understand inputs. Overall moderate completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section merely repeats parameter names with generic phrases (e.g., 'The business description to analyze or process'), adding no meaningful detail about expected content, formats, or examples. The overall description is verbose but fails to clarify parameter semantics.
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 clearly states the tool performs a heuristic double materiality assessment, defining double materiality as impact on people/planet AND financial impact, and returns material ESRS standards. It is distinct from sibling tools like classify_entity or enforcement_status.
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?
Includes explicit 'When to use' (compliance assessment, gap analysis) and 'When NOT to use' (not legal counsel) sections, providing clear guidance on appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: read-only, stateless, idempotent, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, and data privacy. This exceeds the minimum to compensate for missing annotations.
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 description is well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. However, there is minor redundancy between the 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' sections, and some sentences could be tightened without losing value.
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?
Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral details. It provides sufficient context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description only briefly mentions the api_key parameter as 'The api key to analyze or process,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's title. It lacks details on optionality, purpose, or relationship to tiers, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 clearly states the tool checks readiness for iXBRL digital tagging under CSRD and ESEF, using specific verbs and regulatory references. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like classify_entity or double_materiality_assessment by focusing on taxonomy compliance.
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 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections provide explicit context and limitations, including a disclaimer against legal advice. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when alternatives might be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers side effects (read-only, stateless), authentication (none for basic, API key for pro), rate limits (free 10/day, pro unlimited), error handling (structured error objects), idempotency, and data privacy. This is comprehensive and exceeds expectations.
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 description is well-structured with clear sections and front-loads the core purpose. It is slightly verbose but every section adds value. Could be tightened while retaining information.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters with no required fields, and the description includes detailed behavioral transparency, usage guidelines, and parameter context, it is complete and addresses all key aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 description provides examples for scopes_tracked and methodology (e.g., 'scope 1, scope 2 location-based', 'GHG Protocol'), adding meaning beyond the schema. The api_key parameter is mentioned but lacks detailed semantics, though authentication context compensates. Given 0% schema coverage, this is strong.
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 clearly states the tool checks ESRS E1 (Climate) Scope 1/2/3 emissions readiness. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource, and effectively distinguishes from siblings like double_materiality_assessment by focusing on readiness assessment.
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 description includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing clear context for assessment, audit, and verification purposes. It warns against substituting for legal counsel but does not reference specific sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Dedicated 'Behavioral Transparency' section comprehensively covers side effects (read-only, stateless), authentication (none for basic), rate limits (free vs pro), error handling (structured errors), idempotency, and data privacy. With no annotations, the description fully fulfills the transparency burden.
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?
Description is well-structured with clear sections (Behavior, When to use/not, Args, Behavioral Transparency) and front-loaded with the core purpose. While slightly verbose, every section adds value and no sentences are wasted.
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?
Despite simplicity of the tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, behavioral properties, and parameter. Since an output schema exists, explanation of return values is not required. The description is complete for its function.
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?
Only one parameter (api_key) is mentioned in the description, but its description ('The api key to analyze or process') is vague and does not clarify its role relative to authentication tiers. Context signals show 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate more. However, the presence of some description keeps it from being a 2.
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 explicitly states the tool lists all 12 ESRS topical standards plus 2 cross-cutting, providing a clear verb-noun combination with specific count, distinguishing it from sibling tools.
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?
Includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, guiding the agent toward compliance assessment use cases and cautioning against substituting for legal advice. Sibling tools are distinct (e.g., classify_entity, ghg_emissions_readiness), so this tool stands out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![csrd-compliance-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CSOAI-ORG/csrd-compliance-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CSOAI-ORG/csrd-compliance-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![csrd-compliance-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CSOAI-ORG/csrd-compliance-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CSOAI-ORG/csrd-compliance-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CSOAI-ORG/csrd-compliance-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server