Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
iso9000-agentops-mcp

iso9000-agentops-mcp

by orakulzero
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

iso9000_fmea_42001_assess

Compute ISO 31000 FMEA RPN profiles and ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Statements of Applicability to assess risk and document AI management controls.

Instructions

Compute ISO 31000 FMEA RPN profile and ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Statement of Applicability.

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": "iso9000_fmea_42001_assess"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses almost nothing about behavior beyond 'Compute' — it does not say whether the tool is read-only, whether it persists results, what permissions are needed, or how the two assessments interact. For a complex compliance computation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to other gaps rather than being a problem of verbosity.

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 that the tool claims to compute two substantial compliance artifacts, has an undocumented nested array parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It names the standards but does not provide enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

There is one parameter, 'modes', an array of objects with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what 'modes' should contain or how it maps to the FMEA RPN profile or Statement of Applicability. The agent cannot construct a valid 'modes' value from the definition as written.

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 gives a specific verb ('Compute') and concrete resources (ISO 31000 FMEA RPN profile and ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Statement of Applicability), so the agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like iso9000_traceability_matrix or iso9000_run_capa. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the domain-specific purpose is clear.

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 states what the tool computes but gives no indication of when to use it versus the many sibling tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and the standards mentioned.

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