ContractOracle - 10 contract analysis tools: clause extraction, redlines, DORA mappings.
Analyze all Critical/Important Function contracts for enhanced Art. 30(3) requirements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'analyze,' which suggests a read-only operation but does not state side effects, whether results are saved, if any authentication is needed, or what happens after execution. No behavioral context beyond the obvious is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter hints, the description is too sparse for a compliant-based analysis tool. It fails to specify whether the tool returns a report, modifies data, or requires existing contracts to be registered. The agent can infer the subject but not the outcome or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot be expected to explain them. It does add contextual meaning by specifying the scope ('all Critical/Import Function contracts'), which helps the agent understand what the tool operates on. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes Critical/Import Function contracts for enhanced Art. 30(3) requirements, distinguishing it from generic contract-analysis siblings like contract_analyze_llm or contract_gaps. Terminology like 'enhanced Art. 30(3) requirements' is specific but not explained, so full clarity is slightly reduced.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for a compliance-focused review of a specific contract subset, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools, mention prerequisites, or indicate that it operates on already-registered contracts. No exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Validate a contract against all DORA Art. 30 mandatory clauses (standard + CIF).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contract_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the validation is read-only, what output format to expect, whether it modifies the contract, or any prerequisites (e.g., contract exists). The verb 'validate' remains vague about the underlying process.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence of fifteen words that front-loads the verb and object, then adds a specific qualifying phrase. No filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description does not convey enough context for an agent to fully understand the validation's behavior, expected result, or how it complements sibling tools. The phrase 'standard + CIF' is cryptic and may confuse without further explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, contract_id, is not explicitly described. The description's general reference to 'a contract' implicitly tells the agent what the ID is for, but it adds no extra constraints, usage context, or source for obtaining a valid ID. The schema already provides the type and required flag, leaving room for more semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Validate'), a concrete object ('a contract'), and names the precise regulatory scope ('all DORA Art. 30 mandatory clauses'). The qualifier '(standard + CIF)' distinguishes it from sibling tools like cif_analysis and contract_gaps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a clear use case (checking DORA Art. 30 compliance) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are referenced or excluded, leaving room for ambiguous selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
AI-powered deep analysis of contract text against DORA Art. 30(2) mandatory clauses using local Gemma 4 LLM. Provide raw contract text or a contract_id for structured analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Raw contract text to analyze | |
| contract_id | No | Existing contract ID for structured analysis |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it uses a local Gemma 4 LLM, implying non-deterministic output and possible resource use, and calls itself 'analysis,' suggesting read-only. However, it does not mention output format, limitations (e.g., text length), or whether any side effects occur, so it adds only modest behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and every word earns its place. The first sentence defines what the tool does (AI-powered deep analysis against DORA Art. 30(2)) and the second explains how to supply input. No redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it only says 'structured analysis' without specifics. It also does not mention practical limitations like text length limits or language constraints. Given the complexity of an LLM-based tool and the absence of annotations, the description is functional but leaves notable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters already described in the input schema. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by framing 'text' and 'contract_id' as alternatives ('Provide raw contract text or a contract_id'), implying mutual exclusivity. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions, so it deserves above baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('deep analysis') and the resource ('contract text') against DORA Art. 30(2) mandatory clauses. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like clause_check or contract_gaps, but its focus on DORA Art. 30(2) and local Gemma 4 LLM makes its purpose clear and unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: when a deep, AI-powered analysis of contract text against DORA Art. 30(2) is needed. It gives input mode options ('raw contract text or contract_id') but does not exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the explicit 'when-not' guidance required for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Upcoming contract expirations and renewal deadlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days_ahead | No | Lookahead window (default 180 days) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only query for upcoming dates, but does not describe return format, how 'upcoming' is determined beyond the schema default, or whether only active contracts are included.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single short phrase with no filler or redundant content—making the tool's core purpose immediately visible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is minimal but adequate. However, the lack of an output schema and no explanation of the return shape or relationship to sibling tools leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the single parameter (days_ahead) with full coverage and a default value. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a distinct resource (upcoming contract expirations and renewal deadlines) and differentiates it from siblings like list_contracts and contract_gaps, but uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The wording implies the tool is for retrieving upcoming expirations and renewal deadlines, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Identify missing mandatory clauses across all contracts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Identify' implies a non-destructive read operation, but the description does not clarify data access scope, potential performance implications, or the specific set of 'mandatory clauses' being checked. It provides only minimal transparency beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and no filler. It is maximally concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. However, it does not define what constitutes 'mandatory clauses' or describe the return format, which could leave some ambiguity for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. The baseline score of 4 applies, as no parameter schema complexity requires compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Identify' and clearly states the resource ('missing mandatory clauses') and scope ('across all contracts'). This differentiates it from siblings like clause_check, which likely handles individual contracts, and contract_scoring, which scores contracts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The scope 'across all contracts' implies a bulk-analysis use case, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clause_check or contract_analyze_llm. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Red-flag risk scoring: exit risk, lock-in, jurisdiction, subcontracting gaps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contract_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what scoring scale or method is used, whether results are persisted, or what the output shape looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's focus.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a simple one-parameter schema, the tool lacks output schema and annotations. The description omits output format, scoring methodology, and selection guidance, which is especially important given many overlapping sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention contract_id or how it is used. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource (contract scoring) and enumerates risk categories (exit risk, lock-in, jurisdiction, subcontracting gaps), making its scope fairly clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates' or 'returns', so it stops short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance is provided. The listed categories imply use for multi-dimensional red-flag assessment, but the description does not differentiate from overlapping siblings like exit_readiness, subcontracting_chain, or contract_gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Evaluate exit plan readiness for a contract — Art. 28(8) exit strategies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contract_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what inputs are needed beyond contract_id, what the output format is, or any side effects or permissions required. The term 'Evaluate' implies analysis but lacks explicit transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it omits useful details that could be added without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves questions about what 'exit plan readiness' entails, what the output looks like, and how to interpret results. With no output schema or annotations, more context would be expected for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter (contract_id). The description does not elaborate on this parameter or its expected format, leaving the agent to infer from the schema's type string alone. Since there is no compensation, the low-coverage penalty applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Evaluate' with a clear resource ('exit plan readiness for a contract') and references Art. 28(8) exit strategies, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract_expiry or contract_gaps. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or contrast with siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the various sibling analysis tools. The context is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Server status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Server status' reveals nothing about side effects, return format, or whether it is read-only. For a tool that likely performs a network request, this is a complete lack of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two words, 'Server status,' with no wasted text. For a simple parameterless tool, this is maximally concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a vague two-word description. Although it is a simple tool, the description does not clarify what the status check entails or what response format to expect, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Server status' clearly indicates the tool checks server health, and it is distinctly different from the contract-analysis siblings. However, it lacks a verb and does not specify what 'status' includes (e.g., uptime, latency), so it is not as explicit as a verb-driven description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling. The description simply states the purpose without contextualizing it relative to alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List contracts with optional filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| is_cif | No | ||
| provider | No | ||
| expiring_days | No | Show contracts expiring within N days |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List contracts with optional filters', which adds no facts beyond the name and schema. It does not mention return format, pagination, or any 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. However, it is under-specified, but this is a conciseness issue, not verbosity. It earns its place by being direct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three filter parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain what the tool returns, how filters behave, or any other context needed for correct invocation. It is severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not. The phrase 'optional filters' gives no meaning to is_cif, provider, or expiring_days.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'List contracts'. It also mentions 'optional filters', indicating the tool's scope. Among siblings, it is distinct as the only listing tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like contract_expiry or contract_gaps. It does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add or update an ICT third-party contract. Tracks all DORA Art. 30 mandatory clauses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| is_cif | No | Supports critical/important function? | |
| contract_id | No | ||
| audit_rights | No | ||
| auto_renewal | No | ||
| contract_end | No | ||
| jurisdiction | No | ||
| data_location | No | ||
| exit_strategy | No | ||
| governing_law | No | ||
| notice_period | No | ||
| provider_name | Yes | ||
| sub_providers | No | ||
| contract_start | No | ||
| contract_title | No | ||
| sla_definition | No | ||
| data_protection | No | ||
| annual_value_eur | No | ||
| escrow_source_code | No | ||
| function_supported | No | ||
| termination_rights | No | ||
| business_continuity | No | ||
| cooperation_authority | No | ||
| full_sla_quantitative | No | ||
| incident_notification | No | ||
| availability_guarantee | No | ||
| performance_monitoring | No | ||
| subcontracting_conditions | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'Tracks all DORA Art. 30 mandatory clauses,' which hints at validation or enforcement behavior, but it does not explain update semantics (e.g., requires contract_id to update), return values, permissions, or what happens when mandatory clauses are missing. The description is too sparse to adequately inform the agent about side effects or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word is purposeful—it states the operation, the resource type, and a key feature (DORA tracking). There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (28 parameters, mutation behavior, no annotations, no output schema), the description is starkly incomplete. It provides no information about return values, error handling, update vs. create behavior, or how the contract is identified. It also lacks references to related tools or workflow context. The description is insufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly in most scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 4% (only is_cif has a description), so the description must compensate by explaining the many parameters. It does not explain any of the 28 fields, their relationships, or which are required. The mention of 'DORA Art. 30 mandatory clauses' hints that many booleans correspond to clauses, but it lacks specificity. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Add or update an ICT third-party contract.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like contract_gaps or clause_check. The additional note about tracking 'all DORA Art. 30 mandatory clauses' gives further specificity about its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating or updating contract records but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, though the 'add or update' phrasing suggests a write operation distinct from the read/analysis siblings. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, which meets the baseline for implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Map and assess the subcontracting chain of a contract (RTS on subcontracting).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contract_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'map and assess,' implying a read/analysis operation, but does not disclose whether it modifies anything, requires specific permissions, or produces a particular output. This is a thin disclosure for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no superfluous words. It is highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only context. It is too sparse: 'RTS' is undefined, and there is no indication of what the tool returns, any side effects, or edge cases. For a simple one-parameter tool, it is minimally adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only one parameter, contract_id, with no description. The description adds some meaning by saying 'of a contract,' which ties the parameter to the contract being assessed. However, it does not explain the format, source, or any constraints, so the added value is marginal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Map and assess the subcontracting chain of a contract.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract_scoring or clause_check. However, the acronym 'RTS' is unexplained and 'assess' is somewhat generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts. It simply states what the tool does without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
cif_analysisclause_checkcontract_analyze_llmcontract_expirycontract_gapscontract_scoringexit_readinesshealth_checklist_contractsregister_contractsubcontracting_chainClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
LawOracle — 20 legal AI tools: case law search, contracts, EU regulations, citation graph.
Contract review that keeps your contracts: cited answers, Word redlines, key-date alerts.
RegisterOracle - 10-tool DORA Art.28 register: ICT third-party, contracts, criticality.
AI legal compliance: contract review, risk scoring, EU/CN AI act, watermark check. 8 MCP tools.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct (list, register, scoring, expiry, subcontracting). However, clause_check and contract_analyze_llm both analyze contract text against mandatory clauses, and cif_analysis adds a third analysis layer, which could cause confusion if not carefully read.
Tool names mix verb_noun (list_contracts, register_contract), noun_verb (clause_check, health_check), compound nouns (contract_expiry, contract_gaps), and noun_noun (exit_readiness, subcontracting_chain). The pattern is inconsistent across the set.
11 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range, and the count matches the complexity of DORA Art. 30 compliance without being bloated.
Covers contract registration, listing, clause validation, gap analysis, risk scoring, expiry tracking, and subcontracting. Missing get_contract detail and delete/archive, but these are minor for the domain.