Skip to main content
Glama

get_compliance_check

Check data privacy compliance for Latin American countries under laws like LGPD, LFPDPPP, and Habeas Data. Select a country to verify requirements.

Instructions

Country-specific compliance: LGPD (BR), LFPDPPP (MX), Habeas Data (CO), Ley 25.326 (AR), Ley 19.628 (CL), Ley 29733 (PE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryYes

Implementation Reference

  • src/main.ts:144-146 (registration)
    Tool registration in ListToolsRequestSchema handler listing its name, description, and input schema.
      { name: "get_compliance_check", description: "Country-specific compliance: LGPD (BR), LFPDPPP (MX), Habeas Data (CO), Ley 25.326 (AR), Ley 19.628 (CL), Ley 29733 (PE).", inputSchema: { type: "object", properties: { country: { type: "string", enum: Object.keys(COMPLIANCE_CHECKS) } }, required: ["country"] } },
      { name: "get_full_latam_pack", description: "Complete LATAM pack for fine-tuning or full agent context.", inputSchema: { type: "object", properties: {}, required: [] } }
    ]
  • Handler logic in CallToolRequestSchema that looks up the country in COMPLIANCE_CHECKS and returns compliance data with a disclaimer.
    case "get_compliance_check": { const d = COMPLIANCE_CHECKS[country]; if (!d) throw new Error(`Unknown: ${country}`); return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify({ module: "LATAM Compliance Check", country, disclaimer: "General guidance, not legal advice.", ...d }, null, 2) }] }; }
  • Input schema requiring a 'country' parameter from enum of COMPLIANCE_CHECKS keys.
    { name: "get_compliance_check", description: "Country-specific compliance: LGPD (BR), LFPDPPP (MX), Habeas Data (CO), Ley 25.326 (AR), Ley 19.628 (CL), Ley 29733 (PE).", inputSchema: { type: "object", properties: { country: { type: "string", enum: Object.keys(COMPLIANCE_CHECKS) } }, required: ["country"] } },
  • COMPLIANCE_CHECKS data object mapping each country (mexico, brazil, colombia, argentina, chile, peru) to its compliance framework details.
    const COMPLIANCE_CHECKS: Record<string, any> = {
      mexico: { framework: "LFPDPPP — Federal Law of Personal Data Protection in Possession of Private Parties", regulator: "INAI (Instituto Nacional de Transparencia, Acceso a la Información y Protección de Datos Personales)", risks: "Fines + reputational damage; ARCO rights enforcement", spam_law: "LFPDPPP requires consent + opt-out" },
      brazil: { framework: "LGPD (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais) — modeled on GDPR", regulator: "ANPD (Autoridade Nacional de Proteção de Dados)", risks: "Up to 2% of revenue, capped at R$50M per infraction. Active enforcement since 2021.", spam_law: "Marco Civil + LGPD opt-in requirements" },
      colombia: { framework: "Ley 1581 (general) + Ley 1266 (financial) — Habeas Data", regulator: "SIC (Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio)", risks: "Active fines, treatment of sensitive data scrutinized", spam_law: "Anti-spam regulations under Habeas Data" },
      argentina: { framework: "Ley 25.326 — Personal Data Protection Law", regulator: "AAIP (Agencia de Acceso a la Información Pública)", risks: "Fines + corrective measures; recognized as adequate by EU", spam_law: "Federal commerce regulations apply" },
      chile: { framework: "Ley 19.628 — Personal Data Protection (existing); new comprehensive PDP Law in implementation 2024-2025", regulator: "Council for Transparency (during transition); future PDP Authority", risks: "Fines escalating with new law", spam_law: "Consumer protection law applies" },
      peru: { framework: "Ley 29733 — Personal Data Protection", regulator: "ANPDP (Autoridad Nacional de Protección de Datos Personales)", risks: "Fines + corrective measures", spam_law: "ANPDP guidelines on direct marketing" }
    };
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose whether the tool returns text, structured data, or performs any side effects. The behavior beyond listing laws is unclear.

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists the countries and associated laws. However, it could be improved by including the tool's return value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description must explain what the compliance check returns. It only lists laws, leaving the agent uncertain about the output format or content.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning beyond the enum values in the schema. The parameter 'country' is clear from its name and enum, but the description does not provide additional context or format requirements.

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 clearly states the tool provides country-specific compliance information and lists the relevant laws for each country. It implies a lookup function that returns compliance details, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_country_brief or get_etiquette_guide.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when or why to use this tool over alternatives. The description only lists the countries and laws, without explaining the context for using compliance checks versus other 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/closermethod/latam-compliance-mcp'

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