EU regulatory compliance data: 17 regulations, deadlines, enforcement actions. EU-hosted.
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.
Average 4.3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: enforcement actions, regulation listing, detailed lookup, and deadlines. No overlap in functionality.
Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern ('get_enforcement_actions', 'list_regulations') with 'regulation_lookup' and 'upcoming_deadlines' being slight deviations but still consistent in snake_case and clarity.
4 tools is well-scoped for the domain; each covers a necessary aspect of regulatory compliance without being too few or too many.
The set covers discovery, lookup, enforcement, and deadlines, forming a coherent workflow. Minor gaps like a search tool are acceptable given the focused scope.
get_enforcement_actionsAReturn 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'). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. Description adds valuable context: sources (CNIL, Garante, ICO, etc.), RSS feed ingestion, continuous updates, and result fields. 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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and source. No redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Tool is simple (read-only, no required params). Description covers purpose, filters, result contents, data source, and update frequency. Output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description restates filtering options but doesn't add new meaning beyond schema. Acceptable given high schema coverage.
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?
Description uses clear verb 'Return' and specific resource 'EU enforcement actions'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_regulations and upcoming_deadlines by focusing on enforcement action results with filtering.
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?
Implicitly clear when to use: when enforcement actions are needed. Specifies filters (country, regulation, urgency) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools are named but not compared.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_regulationsAList 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 | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds details on the returned fields but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already convey.
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, front-loaded with the action and result details, no extraneous information. Every sentence contributes to understanding.
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 listing tool with no parameters, the description provides purpose, usage context, output details, and safety profile via annotations. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 schema coverage is complete. The description adds value by listing the output fields, which complements the output schema. No parameter explanation is needed.
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 specifies a clear action (list) and resource (EU regulations), enumerates the fields returned, and distinguishes from siblings like regulation_lookup by stating it provides an overview of all regulations.
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 states 'Useful when the user wants an overview or to discover what regulations exist,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list offers implicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
regulation_lookupALook 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'). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description goes beyond by detailing the extensive return fields (dates, fines, authorities, etc.), providing transparency on what the tool yields.
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 comprehensive and front-loaded with the main purpose, then details return fields, then parameter usage. Slightly long but every sentence adds value; no redundancy.
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 available output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, return content, and parameter semantics completely. No obvious gaps for a lookup tool.
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 already describes the 'name' parameter with examples, but the tool description adds meaning by clarifying it accepts short names, full names, or slugs, generalizing beyond the schema's specific slugs.
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: look up a single EU regulation. It lists the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_regulations (multiple) and upcoming_deadlines (different focus).
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (list_regulations, get_enforcement_actions, upcoming_deadlines). The description implies single-item lookup but does not state when alternatives are better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
upcoming_deadlinesAReturn 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). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, signaling safe and idempotent behavior. The description adds that results are sorted ascending by date and include specific fields, and that the tool covers all tracked EU regulations without filtering. This adds useful behavioral context 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?
The description is two sentences: the first covers the primary action and scope, the second details result fields and sorting. Every sentence is necessary; no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the most important 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?
Given the tool has a single optional parameter, a full input schema, and an output schema (implied by context), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the result content (regulation shortName, date, event description, Article reference) and sorting. No additional information is needed for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.
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 description for 'within_days' is complete (100% coverage), specifying the range and default. The description repeats the default (365) and maximum (1825) but does not add significant new meaning. The 'N days default 365' is already in the schema, so no additional semantic value.
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 upcoming regulatory deadlines across all tracked EU regulations within a specified number of days, specifying the verb 'Return' and the resource 'upcoming regulatory deadlines'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_enforcement_actions' and 'list_regulations' by focusing specifically on deadlines.
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 the tool is for retrieving deadlines but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'regulation_lookup' or 'list_regulations'. No exclusions or alternate recommendations are provided, so the usage guidance is only implied.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!