Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Rekvira: EU regulation pinpoints for compliance AI

by com.rekvira
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Read a provision

read_unit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Sign-in required: call connect(email) and connect_verify first (free, one email) unless this connection is already signed in. Read one citable unit by kind and number or label. Articles return aggregated paragraph text. Paragraphs repeat across articles — pass article= (e.g. 6 or '6') to disambiguate. number, label and article accept JSON numbers or strings. read_unit also takes a result row's pinpoint verbatim: pinpoint='Article 6(1)' resolves kind and number for you. Then verify_citation if checking someone else's pinpoint.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
citeNoAlias for pinpoint
kindNorecital | article | paragraph | annex | section
as_ofNoOptional date YYYY-MM-DD: answer with the wording in force on that date (default today). Amended provisions say which act gave them their wording
labelNoExact label e.g. (47) or 1. (string or JSON number)
numberNoUnit number within kind (string or JSON number)
articleNoRequired for paragraphs: parent article number (e.g. 6 or '6')
citationNoAlias for pinpoint
pinpointNoA pinpoint string from a result row, e.g. 'Article 6(1)' — read instead of kind/number
paragraphsNoWith an article or annex: also list each numbered paragraph separately (pinpoint, label, text as printed)
regulationNoRegulation id (required)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / paragraphs
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "With an article or annex: also list each numbered paragraph separately (pinpoint, label, text as printed)",
+  "title": "Paragraphs"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / as_of
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Optional date YYYY-MM-DD: answer with the wording in force on that date (default today). Amended provisions say which act gave them their wording",
+  "title": "As Of"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds significant non-annotation context: the authentication prerequisite (call connect and connect_verify first), that articles return aggregated paragraph text, and that paragraph numbers repeat across articles so article= is needed. These are real behavioral gotchas the annotations do not cover.

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?

Front-loads the sign-in prerequisite and then the core action; every sentence carries information. Dense but not padded, though the closing verify_citation sentence could be tightened slightly.

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?

For a 10-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the main call paths, auth, and the article/paragraph disambiguation pitfall. It is nearly complete; the cite/citation aliases and as_of are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 the baseline is 3. Most of what the description says about parameters (article= for paragraphs, pinpoint resolving kind/number, numbers or strings accepted) restates what the schema already documents, adding little beyond the example pinpoint string.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read one citable unit by kind and number or label') and immediately scopes the behavior for articles and paragraphs. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_regulations and verify_citation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: use read_unit to read one unit, pass article= to disambiguate paragraphs, use pinpoint verbatim from a result row, and use verify_citation instead when checking someone else's pinpoint. Both the when and the alternative are named.

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