Rekvira: EU regulation pinpoints for compliance AI

Save a private playbook

save_workflow

Save or update one private compliance playbook for this keyless trial. It stays inside this trial_id; call publish_workflow only to mark it ready here, never to share it with another user.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	The steps and tool calls for this private playbook
`title`	No	Plain title for this private playbook
`session`	No	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.
`summary`	No	One sentence saying when this private playbook is useful
`trial_id`	No	trial_id returned by connect()
`workflow_id`	No	Lowercase id for this private workflow, e.g. vendor-ai-review

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 24, 2026

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"
+}

First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It adds the key constraint that the playbook stays inside trial_id, which is useful. It does not disclose potential side effects beyond persistence or any authentication requirements, but annotations already signal that this is a write operation, so the bar is lower.

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 two compact sentences. It front-loads the purpose and the scoping constraint, then immediately contrasts with publish_workflow. No wasted words.

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 tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core usage and distinguishes the main alternative. It does not cover every possible scenario, but given the schema covers parameter details and annotations indicate non-readonly, the description is reasonably complete.

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 each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds minimal beyond that, mostly reinforcing the trial_id scope and the session behavior. This meets the baseline but does not go beyond.

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 verb (save or update), the resource (private compliance playbook), and the scope (inside this trial_id). It also distinguishes itself from publish_workflow, so an agent can easily separate the two tools.

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 explicitly provides a usage guideline: call publish_workflow only to mark it ready, never to share it. This differentiates from the most likely sibling. However, it does not mention when to use related tools like get_workflow or delete_workflow, leaving some ambiguity for those cases.

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 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?