Show which EU AI Act obligations and phases are in force or pending as of a given date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ISO date, e.g. "2027-06-01". Defaults to today. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | Yes | ||
| phases | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "as_of": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "phases": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "date": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "in_force": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "date",
+ "in_force"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "as_of",
+ "phases"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, and an output schema exists, so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful behavioral point that results are a snapshot of what is in force vs pending at a date, but nothing about ordering, granularity or date-boundary handling.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the temporal qualifier is placed where it matters.
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 annotations, a fully documented single parameter and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. Only a small gap remains around what a 'phase' comprises and how boundary dates are treated.
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 single 'date' parameter is documented with ISO format and a default of today. The description only echoes the date scoping, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb ('Show which... obligations and phases') plus the resource (EU AI Act obligations/phases) and the temporal lens ('in force or pending as of a given date'). It is distinguishable from get_obligations by the in-force/pending framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 'as of a given date' phrasing implies the temporal use case (checking status at a point in time), but the description never says when to prefer this over get_obligations or assess_compliance, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.