Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cuad-audit

cuad-audit

by master997
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_standard

Retrieve the company standard positions (P1-P6) for liability clauses with provenance, providing data from the clause library to audit contracts against established playbook.

Instructions

Return the company standard (playbook) for a clause type: positions P1-P6 with provenance. The standard is data derived from the clause library, not legal advice; see scope_claim in the result.

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": "get_standard"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clause_typeNoClause lane to audit against. Only 'liability' is implemented.liability

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that the standard is data derived from the clause library, not legal advice, and references scope_claim in the result. However, it lacks details on idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main action, no wasted words. The caveat is placed efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key aspects: what is returned, disclaimers, and a reference. It is complete for its scope.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and description adds meaning by mentioning 'positions P1-P6 with provenance' and 'see scope_claim in the result', which goes beyond the schema's const definition.

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?

Description clearly states it returns the company standard (playbook) for a clause type, specifying positions P1-P6 with provenance. It distinguishes the tool's purpose but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like audit_clause or search_clauses.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions or context provided. Sibling tools exist but no comparison is given.

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