Skip to main content
Glama

run_compliance_check

Run a complete software compliance assessment in one call. Scans for licenses, checks vulnerabilities, validates policies, and returns an approve or reject decision with full documentation.

Instructions

UNIVERSAL COMPLIANCE WORKFLOW: One-shot compliance check for ANY project type.

This is a convenience tool that runs the complete standard compliance workflow:

  1. Scan for licenses and packages (scan_directory)

  2. Generate legal notices with purl2notices (generate_legal_notices)

  3. Validate against policy using ospac (validate_policy or default policy)

  4. Generate SBOM for documentation (generate_sbom)

  5. Check for vulnerabilities (if enabled)

  6. Return comprehensive summary with APPROVE/REJECT decision

This tool works for ANY distribution type (mobile, desktop, embedded, SaaS, etc.) - no specialized tools needed. Distribution type is used for policy validation context.

WHEN TO USE:

  • You want a complete compliance assessment in one call

  • Starting a new project compliance review

  • Need approve/reject decision with full documentation

  • Don't want to orchestrate multiple tool calls manually

  • Want standardized compliance workflow

WHEN NOT TO USE:

  • You need fine-grained control over each step → call individual tools

  • You only need specific information → use targeted tools (scan_directory, etc.)

  • You want to customize the workflow → use individual tools in your preferred sequence

WORKFLOW EXECUTED:

  1. scan_directory(path, identify_packages=True, check_licenses=True)

  2. generate_legal_notices(purls, output_file=NOTICE.txt)

  3. validate_policy(licenses, policy_file or default_policy)

  4. generate_sbom(purls, output_file=sbom.json)

  5. check vulnerabilities (if check_vulnerabilities=True)

  6. Aggregate results → FINAL DECISION: approved/rejected + risk level

Args: path: Directory or project to analyze distribution_type: Optional - mobile, desktop, saas, embedded, etc. (for policy context) policy_file: Optional - Path to custom ospac policy. Uses default if not specified. check_vulnerabilities: Check for security vulnerabilities (default: True) output_dir: Optional - Directory to save outputs (NOTICE.txt, sbom.json). Uses path if not specified.

Returns: Dictionary containing: - decision: "APPROVED" or "REJECTED" - risk_level: "LOW", "MEDIUM", or "HIGH" - summary: Human-readable summary of findings - licenses: List of detected licenses - packages: List of identified packages (PURLs) - vulnerabilities: List of vulnerabilities (if checked) - policy_violations: List of policy violations (if any) - artifacts_created: List of files generated (NOTICE.txt, sbom.json) - recommendations: Actionable next steps

Example: # Complete compliance check with default settings result = run_compliance_check("/path/to/project")

# Mobile app compliance with custom policy
result = run_compliance_check(
    path="/path/to/mobile/app",
    distribution_type="mobile",
    policy_file="/policies/mobile_policy.json"
)

# Check decision
if result["decision"] == "APPROVED":
    print("✓ Ready to ship!")
else:
    print("✗ Issues found:", result["policy_violations"])

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
output_dirNo
policy_fileNo
distribution_typeNo
check_vulnerabilitiesNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it executes a 6-step workflow, returns a comprehensive dictionary with decision, risk level, violations, etc. It also lists what each step does and the return structure, leaving no ambiguity.

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 (workflow, args, returns, example) and is front-loaded with purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose with repeated lists and could be slightly trimmed without losing value. Still efficient overall.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, output schema present but not shown), the description covers all necessary information: workflow, parameter details, return values with field explanations, and an example. It is complete for agent invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the input schema has 0% description coverage (only titles and types), the description provides detailed explanations for all 5 parameters, including defaults, optionality, and how they affect the workflow. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'UNIVERSAL COMPLIANCE WORKFLOW: One-shot compliance check for ANY project type' and lists the steps. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_directory by being a convenience tool that orchestrates multiple steps.

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?

The description includes dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections, explicitly naming alternative tools such as scan_directory, validate_policy, etc. It provides clear guidance on when to call this tool vs. individual tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/SemClone/mcp-semclone'

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