EuroComply — EU Regulatory Compliance
Server Details
EU regulatory compliance data: 17 regulations, deadlines, enforcement actions. EU-hosted.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: enforcement actions, regulation listing, detailed regulation lookup, and deadlines. No overlap in purpose, making it clear which tool to use for each task.
Naming follows mixed patterns: verb_noun ('get_enforcement_actions', 'list_regulations'), noun_noun ('regulation_lookup'), and adjective_noun ('upcoming_deadlines'). While readable, the inconsistency could cause confusion for an agent expecting a uniform verb_noun style.
With only 4 tools, the server is lean and focused. The count is well within the ideal range for a specialized domain, providing essential functionality without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the core needs: listing regulations, getting detailed info, enforcement actions, and upcoming deadlines. A minor gap is the absence of a tool for full regulation text or advanced search, but the available tools enable comprehensive compliance queries.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_enforcement_actionsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return recent EU enforcement actions ingested from official DPA publications (CNIL, Garante, ICO, AEPD, APD, Dutch AP, BfDI, EDPB, ESMA, EBA, EIOPA, CJEU, BSI, ANSSI). Filter by country, regulation, or urgency. Each result includes source authority, regulation, title, summary, urgency (high/medium/low), publication date, and official source URL. Data is sourced directly from supervisory authority RSS feeds and updated continuously.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return. Defaults to 10, maximum 50. | |
| country | No | Filter by country (e.g. 'france', 'germany', 'italy', 'spain', 'netherlands', 'belgium', 'ireland'). Maps to the relevant supervisory authority. | |
| urgency | No | Filter by urgency level. 'high' = immediate action required; 'medium' = monitor closely; 'low' = informational. | |
| regulation | No | Filter by regulation keyword (e.g. 'GDPR', 'AI Act', 'NIS2', 'DORA', 'DSA'). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnly and idempotent hints, and the description adds behavioral context: data sourced from RSS feeds, updated continuously, and includes specific fields in results. No contradictions.
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, covering purpose, authorities, filters, and output fields without unnecessary fluff. It is efficient but could be slightly more streamlined.
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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, data sources, filters, and result fields. It is complete and self-contained.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by country, regulation, or urgency but adds minimal detail beyond existing schema field descriptions.
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 returns recent EU enforcement actions from official DPA publications, listing specific authorities and filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_regulations and regulation_lookup by focusing on enforcement actions.
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 retrieving enforcement actions with filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. No direct guidance on context or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_regulationsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List all EU regulations tracked by EuroComply with their short name, regulation number, CELEX, status, in-force date, application date, and a one-paragraph summary. Useful when the user wants an overview or to discover what regulations exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned, which is behavioral information beyond the 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?
Two sentences that are direct and front-loaded. The first sentence lists the functionality and fields, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words.
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 has no parameters, an output schema for return values, and clear annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, output fields, and when to use 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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter info.
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 explicitly states it lists all EU regulations with specific fields (short name, regulation number, CELEX, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_enforcement_actions or regulation_lookup, which focus on specific details.
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 includes 'Useful when the user wants an overview or to discover what regulations exist,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but given the tool's nature, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
regulation_lookupARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Look up a single EU regulation tracked by EuroComply. Returns the canonical structured entry: full name, regulation number, CELEX, summary, scope, status, in-force/application dates, all key dates with Article references, max fine with tier breakdown, supervising authorities, applies-to, sector applicability, primary articles map, EUR-Lex URL, and EuroComply hub URL. Accepts the short name (e.g. 'GDPR'), full name, or slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Regulation identifier. One of: short name ('GDPR', 'AI Act', 'NIS 2'), regulation number ('(EU) 2016/679'), CELEX ('32016R0679'), or slug ('gdpr', 'ai-act', 'nis2', 'dora', 'cra', 'data-act', 'dma', 'dsa', 'eaa', 'pay-transparency', 'eprivacy', 'whistleblower', 'mica', 'eidas2', 'product-liability', 'csrd', 'csddd'). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by detailing the full return structure, confirming no destructive side effects. No contradictions.
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?
Three well-structured sentences: purpose, return data, input guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
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 an output schema present, the description covers input flexibility and major return fields. No gaps given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.
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 has 100% coverage and already describes the parameter. The description adds context about accepted value formats (short names, etc.), which is helpful but not essential given schema richness.
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 it looks up a single EU regulation and lists the exact data returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_regulations and upcoming_deadlines by focusing on a single regulation lookup.
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?
It specifies acceptable inputs (short name, full name, slug) but does not explicitly tell when to use vs alternatives. The context of 'single lookup' implies differentiation from list and deadline tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
upcoming_deadlinesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return upcoming regulatory deadlines across all tracked EU regulations within the next N days (default 365). Each result includes regulation shortName, date, event description, and Article reference. Sorted ascending by date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| within_days | No | Look-ahead window in days from today. Defaults to 365. Maximum 1825 (5 years). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint (safe, idempotent). The description adds behavioral details: output fields (shortName, date, event description, Article reference), sorting ascending by date, and the default look-ahead window. This enriches transparency beyond 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then output details. Every word adds value, no redundancy or extra information.
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 a single optional parameter and output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: includes default, output fields, and sorting. It could mention behavior when no deadlines are found, but overall it is quite complete given the tool's simplicity.
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 input schema fully documents the single parameter (within_days: type integer, min/max, default 365). The description reinforces the default and effect in context, adding value above the schema's coverage. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3; description earns a 4 by providing contextual usage.
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 specifies the verb ('Return'), resource ('upcoming regulatory deadlines'), and scope ('across all tracked EU regulations'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_enforcement_actions' and 'list_regulations' by focusing on deadlines within a time window.
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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or when not to use it. Although sibling names hint at different purposes, the description itself provides no usage recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!