FINOS AI Governance MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Frameworks

list_frameworks

Retrieves all available AI governance frameworks from the FINOS repository so you can discover options for analysis, compliance checking, or reference.

Instructions

List all available AI governance frameworks from the FINOS repository.

Use this tool to discover what AI governance frameworks are available for analysis, compliance checking, or reference. This is typically the first step when helping users understand regulatory requirements or compliance gaps.

Examples of available frameworks (call this tool for the full, current list):

NIST AI 600-1 (US federal AI governance)
EU AI Act (European Union AI regulation)
ISO 42001 (international AI management standard)
OWASP LLM Top 10 (AI security best practices)
OWASP ML Security Top 10 (machine learning security best practices)

Each entry is named and described by the document itself, so this reads every document in the catalog rather than only the file listing -- one cached fetch per document. A document that cannot be read keeps a name derived from its filename and has no description, so the listing is always complete.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes
`frameworks`	Yes
`total_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that it reads every document in the catalog (one cached fetch per document, implying cost/latency), and that unreadable documents fall back to a filename-derived name with no description so the listing stays complete. Missing are permission requirements and rate-limit behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage context, then behavioral caveats, in a logical order. The five-item framework example list is the weakest part but is explicitly framed as illustrative ("call this tool for the full, current list"), so it earns its space by preventing hardcoded answers.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, entry point role, catalog size implications, and partial-failure behavior. Return value shape is left to the output schema, as appropriate.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds a useful caveat that no arguments are needed to get the "full, current list," discouraging an agent from hardcoding framework names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with its provenance: "List all available AI governance frameworks from the FINOS repository." The scope word "all" implicitly separates it from retrieval tools like get_framework and search_frameworks, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the division of labor.

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?

Offers clear when-to-use context ("discover what frameworks are available for analysis, compliance checking, or reference" and "typically the first step when helping users understand regulatory requirements"). It does not state when to prefer search_frameworks over this tool, nor any exclusions, so guidance is contextual but not routing-complete.

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

Deploy Server