kanibal-tools-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gdpr_offshore_gap_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess GDPR gaps in customer-service processing outsourced outside the EU/EEA: check transfer basis, TIA, Art. 28 clauses, Art. 32 controls and breach notification.

Instructions

GDPR gap report for customer-service processing outsourced outside the EU/EEA.

Checks the transfer basis (adequacy or Art. 46 safeguards), the transfer impact
assessment, the Art. 28 processor contract and its twelve clauses, Art. 32 security
controls and breach notification. Only a JSON true satisfies a check; anything else
is a gap or "to_verify". Use it for transfers outside the EU; for French
telemarketing consent use check_telemarketing_consent. Not legal advice and not a
certification: a report without blocking gap is not a finding of compliance.

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": {
      "answers": "<answers>"
    },
    "name": "gdpr_offshore_gap_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Language of the report text.	en
`answers`	Yes	Your set-up, as a JSON object. Every key is optional and a missing key is reported as to_verify; unknown keys are ignored with a warning.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.1Oct 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / answers / description

Added value: +"Your set-up, as a JSON object. Every key is optional and a missing key is reported as to_verify; unknown keys are ignored with a warning."

addedInput schema / properties / answers / properties

Added value: +{
+  "adequacy_decision": {
+    "description": "An EU adequacy decision exists for the destination.",
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "adequacy_scope_verified": {
+    "description": "The decision's scope (Art. 45(3)) covers this transfer.",
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "art28_contract": {
+    "properties": {
+      "clauses": {
+        "description": "Art. 28 clauses present in the contract.",
+        "properties": {
+          "art32_36_assistance": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "audit_and_inspection": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "data_subject_rights_assistance": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "data_types_and_data_subject_categories": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "deletion_or_return": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "documented_instructions": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "nature_and_purpose": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "personnel_confidentiality": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "security_measures_art32": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "subject_matter_and_duration": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "subprocessor_flowdown": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "subprocessor_prior_authorisation": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "in_writing": {
+        "description": "A written processor contract exists.",
+        "type": "boolean"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "breach_notification_procedure": {
+    "description": "Written procedure for the processor to notify the controller.",
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "data_subject_rights_process": {
+    "description": "Process and timelines agreed with the provider.",
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "destination_country": {
+    "description": "Destination of the transfer.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "iso27001_scope_verified": {
+    "description": "Certificate scope verified (informational only).",
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "label": {
+    "description": "Free name for the set-up, echoed in the report.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "safeguards": {
+    "description": "Art. 46 tools in place. art49_derogation is recognised but never accepted as a basis.",
+    "items": {
+      "enum": [
+        "scc",
+        "bcr",
+        "code_of_conduct",
+        "certification",
+        "ad_hoc_clauses",
+        "public_authority_instrument",
+        "art49_derogation"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "security_controls": {
+    "description": "Art. 32 controls in place (not exhaustive).",
+    "properties": {
+      "access_logging": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "clean_desk": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "encryption_in_transit": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "personal_devices_policy": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "physical_access_control": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "pseudonymisation": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "role_based_access": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "tia_documented": {
+    "description": "A transfer impact assessment is documented.",
+    "type": "boolean"
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / properties / lang / description
```
Added value: +"Language of the report text."
```
addedInput schema / properties / lang / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "en",
+  "fr"
+]
```

First observedv0.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is free to focus on evaluation semantics: 'Only a JSON true satisfies a check; anything else is a gap or to_verify.' It also discloses interpretation caveats (not legal advice, not a certification, absence of blocking gaps ≠ compliance), which is real context beyond the annotations. It doesn't cover how inputs are validated or what happens with contradictory answers, keeping it short of 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Four short blocks ordered purpose → checks → evaluation rule → routing → disclaimer, with no restated title or filler. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format needn't be explained, and the description still adds the scoring rule and interpretive caveats. Nothing important is missing, though a note on partial-answer behavior would fully close the loop for this nested-parameter tool.

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% and the nested answers object documents every field, including enum items and the art49_derogation caveat. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource+scope: a GDPR gap report for customer-service processing outsourced outside the EU/EEA. It then enumerates the exact domains checked (transfer basis, TIA, Art. 28 twelve clauses, Art. 32 controls, breach notification), which no sibling provides.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use it for transfers outside the EU; for French telemarketing consent use check_telemarketing_consent.' This names the alternative and the condition selecting it, so the agent need not open either schema to choose.

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

Deploy Server