Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Rekvira: EU regulation pinpoints for compliance AI

by com.rekvira
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Open a playbook or job

get_workflow
Read-onlyIdempotent

Sign-in required: call connect(email) and connect_verify first (free, one email) unless this connection is already signed in. Full step-by-step playbook for one workflow id from list_workflows. Follow the named tools (search_regulation, read_unit, verify_citation, …) rather than summarising the playbook.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoAlias for workflow_id
nameNoAlias for workflow_id
sessionNoThe `session` value the sign-in returned. Pass it on every call in this conversation, so the sign-in survives however this client handles connections; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key.
trial_idNoOptional trial_id from connect to read your private draft
workflow_idNoId from list_workflows, e.g. high-risk-triage

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / session
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "The `session` value the sign-in returned. Pass it on every call in this conversation, so the sign-in survives however this client handles connections; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key.",
+  "title": "Session"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive); the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the tool is sign-in gated, the session value must be threaded on every call in the conversation, and a trial_id reads a private draft. The directive to follow the named tools instead of summarising is an unusual but valuable disclosure about the expected interaction pattern. It does not cover failure modes for an unknown id, but that is minor for a read-only lookup.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tight sentences with no filler and all guidance actionable. Leading with the sign-in prerequisite rather than the tool's core purpose is a mild front-loading flaw, since an agent skimming for 'what does this do' hits auth mechanics first.

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?

With no output schema, 5 optional parameters, and an auth handshake to explain, the description covers the prerequisites, the id source, and how to use the returned playbook. It is close to complete for this tool's complexity; only the behavior on an invalid/unknown workflow id is left unstated.

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% and every parameter already carries a description, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces where workflow_id comes from and the sign-in/session flow, but the id-source hint largely duplicates what the schema text already says ('Id from list_workflows'), adding little new semantics.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states the resource and scope precisely: a full step-by-step playbook for one workflow id sourced from list_workflows, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_workflows (plural listing). The verb itself is implied rather than stated ('Full step-by-step playbook for...'), so it falls just short of a crisp verb+resource claim.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite chain (call connect(email) and connect_verify first unless already signed in) and tells the agent where the id comes from (list_workflows), plus how to consume the result (follow the named tools rather than summarising). No explicit 'when not to use this' or comparison against a sibling alternative is offered.

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

All Rekvira: EU regulation pinpoints for compliance AI toolsInspect
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