Skip to main content
Glama

check_compliance

Verify component source code meets compliance standards by scoring it against specifications to ensure it passes required thresholds.

Instructions

Quick check if component code is compliant (score >= 80)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe component source code to check

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'check_compliance' tool. It invokes gradeComponent on the input code, checks if the score is >= 80, and formats a compliance report with status, score, and any violations or confirmation of passing.
    function handleCheckCompliance(args: Record<string, unknown>): ToolResult {
      const code = args.code as string;
      const result = gradeComponent(code);
    
      const isCompliant = result.score >= 80;
      const status = isCompliant ? '✅ COMPLIANT' : '❌ NOT COMPLIANT';
    
      const text = `# ${status}
    
    **Score:** ${result.score}/100 (${result.grade})
    **Threshold:** 80/100
    
    ${
      result.violations.length > 0
        ? `## Issues to Fix (${result.violations.length})
    ${result.violations.map((v) => `- ${v.message}${v.suggestion ? ` → ${v.suggestion}` : ''}`).join('\n')}`
        : '## All checks passed!'
    }
    `;
    
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text }],
      };
    }
  • The input schema and definition for the 'check_compliance' tool, specifying that it requires a 'code' string parameter.
    {
      name: 'check_compliance',
      description: 'Quick check if component code is compliant (score >= 80)',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          code: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The component source code to check',
          },
        },
        required: ['code'],
      },
    },
  • The switch case in executeTool that registers and dispatches to the check_compliance handler.
    case 'check_compliance':
      return handleCheckCompliance(args);
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a 'quick check' and a compliance threshold ('score >= 80'), but lacks details on what 'compliant' means, how the score is calculated, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage, leaving key behaviors unspecified.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Quick check if component code is compliant (score >= 80)'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential context (the threshold). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., scoring method, error cases), output format, and usage context relative to siblings. For a compliance-checking tool with one parameter, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'code' documented as 'The component source code to check'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as code format or length constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Quick check if component code is compliant (score >= 80)'. It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('component code'), and success criterion ('score >= 80'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'grade_component', which might perform a similar function with different scoring or output.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'grade_component' or 'get_rule', nor does it specify prerequisites, such as needing code input or when a quick check is appropriate versus a detailed analysis. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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/getlokiui/components-build-mcp'

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