Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@presencis/regulatory-mcp

@presencis/regulatory-mcp

Official
by Presencis-com
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_framework

Read-only

Fetch one active regulatory framework by exact ID, including related comparisons and sector overlaps, for compliance research and obligation mapping.

Instructions

Fetch one active framework by exact id, including related comparisons and sector overlaps.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_framework"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: results are restricted to active frameworks and the payload fans out to related comparisons and sector overlaps. It stops short of saying what happens for an unknown or inactive id (error vs. empty result).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and selector, then the payload scope. No filler, hedging, or restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the lookup key and the shape of the return at a high level. It leaves gaps on acquiring an id and on failure/empty behavior, which matter for an exact-match lookup tool.

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 0%, so the single 'id' parameter is undocumented structurally; the description compensates partially by specifying 'exact' matching semantics, ruling out fuzzy or prefix lookups. It says nothing about id format or provenance, so meaning is only partly added.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one active framework') and narrows scope to a single record by exact id, plus states what the response includes (comparisons, sector overlaps). It does not name or contrast any sibling such as list_frameworks, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'by exact id' implies this is the lookup path once an identifier is known, and 'active' implies inactive frameworks are out of scope. However, there is no explicit guidance on where to obtain an id (e.g., via list_frameworks) or when to prefer find_crosswalk or search_compliance_qa instead.

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