Skip to main content
Glama
AIR MCP Server

AIR MCP Server

by VericyIO

Get assessment summary

air_get_assessment_summary
Read-only

Fetch a slim assessment summary for triage, covering EU AI Act tier, quality, project decisions, section counts, changes since the previous scan, and top risks.

Instructions

Fetch a slim assessment report summary without the full risk/evidence payload: overview, quality, the EU AI Act tier (value, name, description, and final: true when no open question can change it) with the names of the matched criteria, section counts, the saved project choices (projectDecisions, each with posture and, when it came back, cameBackBecause), and changesSincePrevious — each checklist item that closed, is still open, is new, was newly judged, came back, or could not be judged since the previous completed scan, plus inputs: the documents added, removed, or changed in content (a re-upload of the same text is unchanged). Read those labels as given; do not work out the match yourself. Prefer this over air_get_assessment_report for triage. topRisks lists the first few risk-register items in short form; fetch the riskRegister section of air_get_assessment_report for the full list. Requires assessments:read.

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": {
      "assessmentPid": "<assessmentPid>"
    },
    "name": "air_get_assessment_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assessmentPidYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds real value on top: the required assessments:read scope, the warning that topRisks is only the first few register items, the meaning of `final: true`, and the directive to treat match labels as authoritative rather than recomputing them. Missing only return-shape details such as container/field naming conventions, which is minor for a read tool.

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?

Front-loaded correctly and every clause conveys information, but the field enumeration is delivered as one enormous run-on sentence with nested parentheses (notably the EU AI Act tier parenthetical and the changesSincePrevious list). Two or three shorter sentences or a compact field list would be far easier to parse.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description legitimately carries the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly — overview, quality, tier, projectDecisions, changesSincePrevious, inputs, topRisks — plus the auth requirement. The one gap is the sole input parameter, which is left entirely undescribed.

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?

Single required parameter assessmentPid with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no format, no source (list_assessments?), no statement of what happens on an unknown PID. The description must compensate at this coverage level and does not.

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?

Specific verb (Fetch) plus resource (assessment report summary) plus an explicit statement of what is excluded (the full risk/evidence payload). Enumeration of the returned sections makes it easy to tell apart from air_get_assessment and air_get_assessment_report.

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?

"Prefer this over air_get_assessment_report for triage" names the alternative and the selecting condition, and the topRisks sentence routes the agent to the sibling tool's riskRegister section when the short form is not enough. Both directions of the choice are stated, not inferred.

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