ppdm-mcp-server

get_sla_compliance

Report which assets have not been backed up within a required SLA window, using a configurable compliance period in hours.

Instructions

Report SLA compliance — which assets have not been backed up within the required window.

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": "get_sla_compliance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hours`	No	Compliance window in hours (default 24)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.2.2Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 implies a read-only report and describes what the report identifies, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permission requirements, or pagination/return format details.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It immediately states the purpose and then defines the compliance concept without unnecessary wording.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the report's purpose and the core result (assets not backed up). It could be stronger by explicitly noting read-only behavior or summarizing the return shape, but the essential context is present.

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 coverage is 100%: the single 'hours' parameter is fully described with its default. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('SLA compliance') and clarifies what compliance means: assets not backed up within the required window. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like list_failed_jobs or get_activity, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

Usage is implied: check which assets have missed their backup window. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as list_failed_jobs for raw failure data.

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