EuroComply — EU Regulatory Compliance
Server Details
EU regulatory compliance data: 17 regulations, deadlines, enforcement actions. EU-hosted.
- Status
- Healthy
- 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 4.1/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: enforcement actions, regulation list, single regulation lookup, and upcoming deadlines. No overlap in purpose.
Three tools use verb_noun pattern (get_enforcement_actions, list_regulations, upcoming_deadlines), but regulation_lookup reverses the order (noun_verb). However, all names are clear and follow snake_case.
Four tools is well-scoped for a regulatory compliance domain, covering browsing, details, enforcement, and deadlines without bloat.
Covers core needs: list regulations, look up details, check enforcement actions, and upcoming deadlines. Minor gaps like searching or filtering regulations, but sufficient for primary use cases.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals data sources, update frequency ('updated continuously'), result structure, and filter effects. It implies a read-only operation with no destructive behavior.
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 paragraph with no extraneous sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently covers sources, filtering, and result content.
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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers input parameters, source credibility, update mechanism, and output structure. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains urgency levels in detail, country mapping to authorities, and regulation examples. This adds value for selection.
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 specific official DPA publications. It lists source authorities and result fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_regulations and 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?
The description explains filtering by country, regulation, or urgency, and what each filter does (e.g., urgency levels defined). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but sibling context makes the use case clear.
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 17 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It says it lists all regulations but does not mention read-only nature, auth requirements, or output format. This is adequate but minimal.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and fields, the second suggests use. Well-structured 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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and expected output fields. It lacks details on error handling or list mutability, but is sufficiently complete for a simple list operation.
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 does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline 4 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 clearly states what the tool does: list all 17 EU regulations tracked by EuroComply with specific fields. It is concrete but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the sibling names imply distinct purposes.
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 explicit context: 'Useful when the user wants an overview or to discover what regulations exist.' This guides the agent on when to invoke the tool, though it lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool mentions.
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?
The description details the return structure and accepted input forms, but lacks disclosure of error handling (e.g., if the regulation is not found). Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. annotation_contradiction: false
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 front-loads the core purpose ('Look up a single EU regulation') and then lists the returned fields. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured by splitting into two sentences.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return value in detail (listing many fields). However, it omits behavior on missing regulation and does not clarify if the output is always structured as described.
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%, and the description reiterates the accepted input formats (short name, full name, slug) already listed in the schema. The description adds no significant new meaning 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 clearly states the tool performs a lookup of a single EU regulation and enumerates the specific fields returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_regulations (which likely returns a list) and upcoming_deadlines (which returns 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 when to use (when needing detailed info on one regulation) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or mention when not to use. 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.
upcoming_deadlinesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return upcoming regulatory deadlines across all 17 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?
The description adds behavioral context: sorted ascending by date, includes specific fields, and defaults within_days to 365. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, data freshness, or whether the tool is read-only (though it's implied). Given no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.
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 at two sentences, immediately stating the tool's purpose, scope, default, and output format. 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?
The description explains the return fields (shortName, date, event description, Article reference) and sorting, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not mention pagination or potential filtering beyond the date window, leaving minor gaps for large result sets.
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 provides a comprehensive description of the parameter, including default, min, max. The tool description merely restates the default (365) without adding new semantic depth 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 clearly states the tool returns upcoming regulatory deadlines across all 17 EU regulations, specifying the time window and result fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_enforcement_actions and list_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 implicitly guides usage by specifying the tool returns upcoming deadlines, which is distinct from sibling tools that handle enforcement actions, regulation listing, and specific regulation lookup. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.
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!