Skip to main content
Glama

validate_compliance

Validate architecture compliance with HIPAA, PCI-DSS, SOC 2, FedRAMP, and GDPR. Runs encryption, logging, and access control checks. Returns pass/fail per check, evidence, and remediation hints. Optionally includes AWS Well-Architected.

Instructions

Validate an architecture against compliance frameworks.

Returns one result object per framework with pass/fail status per check, evidence (which components triggered the rule), and remediation hints.

When to use: You have a proposed architecture and need to know whether it satisfies HIPAA / PCI-DSS / SOC 2 / FedRAMP / GDPR before proceeding. Use security_scan for anti-pattern detection (weak auth, public buckets, etc.) which is framework-agnostic.

Behavior: Pure computation — no LLM, no network. Evaluates the spec statically against 30+ rules. Does not access or modify any cloud resources.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
spec_jsonYesArchSpec to validate. Checks are run against the declared components, connections, and provider settings — no cloud API access required.
frameworksYesList of compliance framework slugs to validate against. Each framework runs 5-7 checks (encryption, logging, access control, etc.). Values: 'hipaa', 'pci-dss', 'soc2', 'fedramp', 'gdpr'.
well_architectedNoWhen True, additionally runs the AWS Well-Architected Framework pillar checks (multi-AZ, auto-scaling, backup, monitoring, SPOF detection, cost optimization). Independent of the `frameworks` list.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details behavior: pure computation, no LLM/network, static evaluation against 30+ rules, no cloud resource access. This fully informs the agent about safety and side effects.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, return value, usage, behavior). Every sentence is necessary and concise, no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Even without viewing output schema, the description explains return format (one result per framework with pass/fail, evidence, remediation hints). Combined with behavior and usage guidelines, it provides full context for correct invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage. The description adds practical context: spec_json is the architecture to validate, frameworks are slugs each with 5-7 checks, well_architected runs additional independent checks. This integrates schema info meaningfully.

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?

The description clearly states the tool validates an architecture against compliance frameworks, specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool security_scan by noting the latter is for framework-agnostic anti-pattern detection.

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 'When to use' section describes scenarios (verifying HIPAA/PCI-DSS/etc. compliance before proceeding) and suggests an alternative (security_scan for anti-patterns).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xmpuspus/cloudwright'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server