Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
guardvibe

guardvibe

by goklab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

compliance_report

Maps security findings to compliance controls (SOC2, PCI-DSS, HIPAA, GDPR, ISO27001, EUAIACT) by scanning a directory and grouping issues; use executive mode for C-level summaries.

Instructions

Map security findings to compliance controls (SOC2, PCI-DSS, HIPAA, GDPR, ISO27001, EUAIACT). Scans a directory and groups issues by control. Output includes a summary section at the top; for large projects, findings are truncated to top 50. Use mode=executive for C-level summary. Example: compliance_report({path: '.', framework: 'SOC2'})

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "framework": "<framework>"
    },
    "name": "compliance_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoReport mode: full (detailed) or executive (C-level summary)full
pathYesDirectory to scan
formatNoOutput format: markdown (human) or json (machine-readable for agents)markdown
frameworkYesCompliance framework

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.66.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.42
    • changedInput schema / properties / framework / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "SOC2",
-  "PCI-DSS",
-  "HIPAA",
-  "GDPR",
-  "ISO27001",
-  "all"
-]New value: +[
+  "SOC2",
+  "PCI-DSS",
+  "HIPAA",
+  "GDPR",
+  "ISO27001",
+  "EUAIACT",
+  "all"
+]
  3. First observedv0.1.0

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 burden and does meaningful work: it discloses output structure (summary section at top), a truncation limit (top 50 findings on large projects), and an output-shaping mode. It does not state that the scan is read-only/no-write, nor anything about permissions or runtime cost, leaving some behavioral gaps for a directory-scanning tool.

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-loads the core action, then output behavior, then the mode hint and a compact example. Every sentence is functional, though the framework enumeration and example add length that could be trimmed given the schema already lists the enum values.

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, and the description compensates by explaining the report's shape (summary at top, truncation cap) and the executive mode. Remaining gaps are minor: what a finding entry looks like, and whether the operation is purely read-only.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (mode, path, format, framework) are already documented, including enums. The description only echoes the mode=executive meaning and shows an example invocation, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: map security findings to compliance controls, and enumerates the supported frameworks (SOC2, PCI-DSS, HIPAA, GDPR, ISO27001, EUAIACT). The scope (scan a directory, group issues by control) is concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like check_project or full_audit, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear usage context ('Scans a directory and groups issues by control') and a concrete trigger for a variant ('Use mode=executive for C-level summary'), plus a worked example call. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or which sibling (e.g. generate_policy, audit_config) covers adjacent needs, so no explicit alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools