EuroComply — EU Regulatory Compliance

get_enforcement_actions

Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedMay 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Object with totalActionsLast90Days, filters, returned count, and array of actions (source, regulation, urgency, title, summary, publishedAt, url).",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the data source (RSS feeds from supervisory authorities), the continuous update frequency, and the fields returned per result. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise, using two sentences that front-load the main purpose, then detail filters and data source. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with no required parameters and a present output schema, the description adequately covers data source, freshness, and return fields. It lacks pagination details, but those are covered in the schema, and the tool is simple enough that nothing else is needed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (limit, country, urgency, regulation) are already fully described. The description merely mentions the filter options without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns recent EU enforcement actions from specific supervisory authorities, with filtering options. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on regulations and deadlines, making it unambiguous what this tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it (to retrieve enforcement actions) and lists filters, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use. The purpose is clear enough that an agent would infer the appropriate context.

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

All EuroComply — EU Regulatory Compliance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?