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

iso9000-agentops-mcp

by orakulzero
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

iso9000_issue_certificate

Issue an HMAC-SHA256 quality certificate, SVG badge, and OASIS SARIF 2.1.0 report from test and source inputs so teams can document verified quality and audit results.

Instructions

Issue HMAC-SHA256 quality certificate, SVG badge, and OASIS SARIF 2.1.0 report.

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_issue_certificate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
testsNo
sourceNo

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, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It never says whether a certificate is signed/persisted somewhere, whether files are written to disk, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or that both inputs are optional (0 required parameters). Only the output formats are disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, naming the three deliverables efficiently. It is terse rather than padded; brevity here costs information rather than wasting it.

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?

For a certificate-issuing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, one sentence is far too thin. The agent cannot tell what the inputs should contain, where the artifacts go, or whether issuing is a mutating, possibly irreversible act.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions 'tests' or 'source' at all. The two parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving an agent to guess whether 'tests' is a path, a JSON blob, or a command, and what 'source' refers to.

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 concrete artifacts: 'Issue HMAC-SHA256 quality certificate, SVG badge, and OASIS SARIF 2.1.0 report.' An agent knows what comes out of the call. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like iso9000_traceability_matrix or iso_certify_portfolio, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this versus iso_certify_portfolio, iso9000_verify_oracle, or the other nine siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer timing (presumably after tests run) from the artifact names alone.

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