Skip to main content
Glama

Data Compliance Classifier MCP

by io.github.OjasKord

get_safety_report

Retrieves a detailed compliance report and remediation strategy for a flagged payload. Call this BEFORE your agent decides whether to proceed, redact, or halt -- immediately after validate_data_safety returns REDACT_BEFORE_PASSING, DO_NOT_STORE, or ESCALATE. Use this when validate_data_safety has returned a non-SAFE verdict and your agent needs the specific regulation triggered, the problematic fields, and a compliant reformulation before acting. Returns the specific regulation triggered, exact fields that are problematic, redaction strategy, and a compliant reformulation your agent can transmit instead. Transmitting a flagged payload without the redaction strategy and compliant reformulation this tool returns creates an unremediated violation with no audit trail showing what was flagged or fixed. Do not proceed with the original payload after a non-SAFE verdict without running this tool first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYesREPORT: get redaction strategy and compliant reformulation for a flagged payload. BATCH: classify up to 50 payloads. AUDIT: generate compliance summary report.
contextNoWhat will be done with this data. Used to improve verdict accuracy.
payloadNoThe flagged payload to analyse. Required for REPORT mode.
payloadsNoArray of data payloads to classify. Required for BATCH mode. Maximum 50.
jurisdictionNoJurisdiction override for REPORT mode (e.g. "EU", "US", "UK"). Optional.
dataset_descriptionNoDescription of the dataset for AUDIT mode (e.g. "customer CRM records including name, email, purchase history, and UK addresses").

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNo
statusNoPresent on the free-tier REPORT preview path
messageNo
checked_atYes
_disclaimerYes
upgrade_urlNo
patterns_detectedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Shape varies by mode (REPORT/BATCH/AUDIT) and tier (free/paid) -- fields below are the common envelope, see description for the specific extra fields per mode.",
+  "properties": {
+    "_disclaimer": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "checked_at": {
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "mode": {
+      "enum": [
+        "REPORT",
+        "BATCH",
+        "AUDIT"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "patterns_detected": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Present on the free-tier REPORT preview path",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "upgrade_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "checked_at",
+    "_disclaimer"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / jurisdiction
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Jurisdiction override for REPORT mode (e.g. \"EU\", \"US\", \"UK\"). Optional.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / mode / description
      Previous value: -"BATCH: classify up to 50 payloads with full reasoning. AUDIT: generate compliance summary report."New value: +"REPORT: get redaction strategy and compliant reformulation for a flagged payload. BATCH: classify up to 50 payloads. AUDIT: generate compliance summary report."
    • changedInput schema / properties / mode / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "BATCH",
-  "AUDIT"
-]New value: +[
+  "REPORT",
+  "BATCH",
+  "AUDIT"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / payload
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The flagged payload to analyse. Required for REPORT mode.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals what the tool returns (specific regulation, problematic fields, redaction strategy, compliant reformulation) and the consequence of not using it (unremediated violation with no audit trail). This is transparent about both the output and the importance of invoking the tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is verbose and repetitive. It states the purpose, then repeats the trigger condition ('immediately after validate_data_safety returns...' vs. 'Use this when validate_data_safety has returned...') and the output details ('Retrieves... report and remediation strategy' vs. 'Returns the specific regulation triggered...'). This redundancy makes the description longer than necessary.

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?

The description is quite comprehensive for a tool with 6 parameters and an output schema. It covers when to use it and what it returns, and adds the critical behavioral warning about audit trail. It does not elaborate on mode specifics or error handling, but the schema covers modes and the output schema covers return values.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, including the mode enum and payload requirements. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieves a detailed compliance report and remediation strategy for a flagged payload' and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling validate_data_safety by specifying that it is used after a non-SAFE verdict. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this BEFORE your agent decides whether to proceed, redact, or halt -- immediately after validate_data_safety returns REDACT_BEFORE_PASSING, DO_NOT_STORE, or ESCALATE.' It also gives a strong directive: 'Do not proceed with the original payload after a non-SAFE verdict without running this tool first.' This clearly defines the trigger and required action.

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

All Data Compliance Classifier MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct role: validate_data_safety performs full AI classification, validate_data_safety_lite is a fast pattern-only pre-filter, and get_safety_report provides actionable remediation after a non-safe verdict. The clear workflow descriptions eliminate overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use a verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_safety_report, validate_data_safety, validate_data_safety_lite). The shared prefix for the two validation tools is consistent, and the lite suffix clearly indicates the lightweight variant.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose: a primary validator, a fast pre-filter, and a follow-up report generator. There is no unnecessary bloat or missing core functionality.

Completeness5/5

The server covers the full compliance workflow: validate, optionally pre-filter with lite, and retrieve detailed reports when needed. The descriptions indicate support for multiple frameworks and clear redaction strategies, leaving no obvious dead ends in the primary use case.

Resources