Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pdpa-audit-mcp

pdpa-audit-mcp

by Sadeep78
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Find Personal Data Forms

find_personal_data_forms

Audit web forms for personal or sensitive data, GET submissions, and pre-ticked consent to identify PDPA compliance gaps on sites or projects you are authorized to review.

Instructions

Audit web forms for personal/sensitive data, GET submissions, and pre-ticked consent. Use only on sites/projects you own or are authorised to audit. Defensive use only. Use this tool only on websites, endpoints, or local projects that you own or have explicit written authorization to audit.

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "find_personal_data_forms"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the detection targets (GET submissions, pre-ticked consent) and the authorization prerequisite, which is more than nothing, but it never states whether the tool is read-only, whether it fetches or submits anything over the network, or what side effects to expect on a live endpoint.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The first sentence is efficient and front-loaded. The remaining three sentences restate the same authorization requirement almost verbatim ('sites/projects you own or are authorised to audit', 'defensive use only', 'own or have explicit written authorization'), which is repetitive padding rather than added information.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the description adequately frames scope and legality. It is still incomplete on the one thing an agent must get right before calling: the expected format and type of the required 'target' value.

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 for the single 'target' parameter and does not. It never says whether target is a URL, a domain, a filesystem path, or a project identifier — a meaningful ambiguity given the tool supports 'websites, endpoints, or local projects'.

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 states a specific verb ('Audit web forms') and enumerates the exact findings: personal/sensitive data, GET submissions, and pre-ticked consent. This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like detect_cookie_consent or scan_privacy_policy, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It gives a hard precondition (ownership or explicit written authorization) and a 'defensive use only' restriction, which is genuine usage context. However, it offers no guidance on when to pick this over sibling scanners such as detect_cookie_consent or scan_project_files, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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