Skip to main content
Glama
DanceNitra

inspeximus

by DanceNitra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

compliance_check

Verifies an AI-Act record-keeping store's compliance invariants and reports regressions: disabled receipts, integrity failures, PII over-retention, or non-append-only history.

Instructions

CI/CONTINUOUS compliance GATE (read-only, no LLM): assert the invariants a store claiming AI-Act record-keeping must hold and report any regression. Returns {ok, violations, checked} — violations include receipts_disabled (Art.12/19), integrity_failed (Art.12/15), pii_over_retention (GDPR 5(1)(e)). ok=False means the memory posture regressed. Needs INSPEXIMUS_RECEIPTS=1 for the record-keeping checks.

prior_anchor (an anchor() dict an auditor pinned earlier, out of band) adds the APPEND-ONLY check: not_append_only (Art. 12/19) fires when today's history is not a consistent extension of it. This surface used to drop the argument, so that violation could never fire here however the store was rewritten — checked never listed append_only, but the CLI's own --prior-anchor did the check and the tool docstring advertised the violation. The one operator-ADVERSARIAL check of the four is the one an auditor is most likely to want.

expected_pubkey (hex, optional) binds integrity_failed to the key the receipts should be signed by; defaults to INSPEXIMUS_RECEIPT_PUBKEY, the same pin verify_writes uses.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prior_anchorNo
expected_pubkeyNo
max_pii_age_daysNo
require_receiptsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.12.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected_pubkey
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Expected Pubkey",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv2.20.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does an excellent job: it discloses read-only behavior, no-LLM execution, exact return shape, environment variable requirements, the append-only check semantics, and even a historical bug where the argument was dropped. This is highly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and returns, but it is long and includes a somewhat meandering historical bug narrative. While the details are useful, the structure could be tighter without losing essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers return values, environment variables, and two of four parameters, but it lacks any explanation for max_pii_age_days and require_receipts. Without an output schema or annotations, those gaps leave the tool incompletely specified for an agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives rich semantics for prior_anchor and expected_pubkey, but completely omits max_pii_age_days and require_receipts. An agent would be left guessing what these two parameters do.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific function: assert AI-Act record-keeping invariants and report regressions via {ok, violations, checked}. It is more specific than a vague 'compliance check', but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like compliance_report or governance_report.

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 description gives practical context: it is a CI/continuous gate, read-only, and requires INSPEXIMUS_RECEIPTS=1 for record-keeping checks. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the choice of tool somewhat implicit.

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