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

iso9000-agentops-mcp

by orakulzero
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

iso_certify_portfolio

Certify multi-repository portfolios by aggregating RTM coverage, maximum FMEA RPN, SoA controls, and Merkle tree roots into one verifiable certification result.

Instructions

Certify multi-repository ecosystem portfolio, aggregating RTM coverage, max FMEA RPN, SoA controls, and Merkle tree root.

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": {
      "repository_reports": "<repository_reports>"
    },
    "name": "iso_certify_portfolio"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
secretNodefault-iso9000-cert-secret
versionNo2.0.0
portfolio_nameNoEcosystem Portfolio
repository_reportsYesDictionary mapping repository names to their report dictionaries.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about side effects, whether a certificate artifact is created or mutated, how the `secret` is used, or what the response contains. For an aggregation/certification tool with a secret parameter, 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every term (RTM, FMEA RPN, SoA, Merkle root) is load-bearing. It is terse by intent, though the terseness borders on under-specification.

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?

A multi-repository aggregation tool with a required nested object, a secret, and a version parameter gets only one sentence, with no annotations and no output schema. An agent lacks what it needs to know about input format, side effects, or expected result.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 25% — just `repository_reports` is documented. The description never mentions `secret`, `version`, or `portfolio_name`, nor does it explain the expected shape of the nested repository report dictionaries or how they map to the aggregated metrics. The readable parameter names partially save it from a 1, but the description adds no meaning.

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 (Certify) and resource (multi-repository ecosystem portfolio), and enumerates the artifacts aggregated (RTM coverage, max FMEA RPN, SoA controls, Merkle root), which implicitly distinguishes it from per-repo siblings like iso9000_traceability_matrix. It's clear what it produces; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 call this versus the individual sibling tools (iso9000_traceability_matrix, iso9000_fmea_42001_assess, iso9000_issue_certificate). An agent must infer that this is an aggregate/rollup call, and nothing says what prerequisites (e.g., per-repo reports already generated) are required.

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