AI Law Tracker

Assess AI compliance risk

assess_ai_compliance

Read-onlyIdempotent

The compliance-report engine (deterministic, no LLM — cannot hallucinate) as a tool. Give a business profile; get the applicable AI-law obligations plus a reproducible 1–10 risk score with a named factor breakdown. state and sector are required. Paid feature (Pro+); lower tiers get a preview (risk band + counts + one sample obligation). NOT legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`size`	No	Company size band (e.g. startup, small, medium, enterprise).
`aiUse`	No	How AI is used.
`state`	Yes	US state slug (e.g. california).
`sector`	Yes	Sector slug (see list_sectors).
`ai_policy`	No
`ai_source`	No
`countries`	No	EU/global country slugs also operated in/served.
`bias_audit`	No
`ai_decision_impact`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) indicate safe, side-effect-free operation. The description adds 'deterministic, no LLM — cannot hallucinate', 'reproducible', and 'NOT legal advice', providing valuable behavioral context 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences: defines the engine, summarizes the function, and adds constraints/disclaimer. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded with the most critical information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the tool's purpose, deterministic nature, required parameters, paid behavior, and disclaimer. Given 9 parameters and no output schema, missing details about the response format are a minor gap, but overall adequate.

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 56%, so baseline is 3. The description only repeats that 'state' and 'sector' are required, which is already in the schema. No additional parameter-level guidance is provided.

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 explicitly states 'Give a business profile; get the applicable AI-law obligations plus a reproducible 1–10 risk score with a named factor breakdown.' It clearly identifies the tool as a deterministic compliance-report engine, distinct from siblings like get_ai_obligations which only list obligations without scoring.

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 this tool is for comprehensive compliance assessment, mentioning paid feature differences and a legal disclaimer. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_ai_obligations' or 'generate_compliance_report'.

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

All AI Law Tracker tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools are nearly interchangeable: assess_ai_compliance and generate_compliance_report both take a business profile and return risk score plus obligations, and get_sector_detail overlaps with get_ai_obligations/get_ai_penalties. Additionally, list_recent_changes and list_law_feed both describe dataset changes, while list_jurisdictions overlaps with list_countries and list_us_states. An agent cannot reliably pick the right tool without reading fine print.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set mostly follows a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_ai_law, list_sectors, search_court_opinions). Minor deviations exist: assess_ai_compliance and generate_compliance_report use different verb styles for near-identical actions, and list_ai_law_news is inconsistent with list_ai_laws. Overall the pattern is still predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 28 tools, the server exceeds the comfortable range and includes several redundant or overlapping endpoints that could be consolidated. The broad domain justifies a larger surface, but duplicates like assess_ai_compliance/generate_compliance_report and the three jurisdiction listers make the count feel inflated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core read-only AI-law workflow well: search and retrieve laws, obligations, penalties, deadlines, sectors, jurisdictions, bills, court opinions, news, and change history. Minor gaps remain, such as no way to fetch a single obligation/penalty record by ID and no separate news-detail endpoint, but these are workable and not dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?