Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Rekvira: EU regulation pinpoints for compliance AI

by com.rekvira
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Send feedback to the team

submit_feedback

Sign-in required: call connect(email) and connect_verify first (free, one email) unless this connection is already signed in. Send feedback about Rekvira to the team that builds it: a bug, a wrong answer, missing data, a missing feature, a workflow idea, or praise. Every item is read by a person. When to offer it: an answer came back empty or wrong; the user corrected you or the result; a workflow was missing a step the user needed; the user repeats a manual step the service could do for them; the user says they need something the service does not do. Offer once, in one sentence; the user's task comes first. Ask first. Show the user what you will send and send it only after they agree. Their own words, and any client, case, company or personal detail, go only with their explicit OK; then set confirmed=true. With authored_by='agent' you may report your own observation of the service (the tool, what you expected, what came back) without asking, as long as it holds none of the user's words or confidential content. Fill kind and what (the task, and what went wrong or what is needed). For a wrong answer add expected and got. Add tool and query for context (the query only with the user's OK), severity, and contact_email only when the user wants a reply. Length: what up to 50,000 characters; expected and got up to 20,000 each; query up to 5,000; 80,000 for one item in all. A detailed analysis with context, evidence and proposals is welcome in one item; longer than that, send numbered parts (1/n, 2/n ...), each a complete item. The reply carries a reference id. Tell the user it reached the team; do not promise a reply or a date.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gotNoFor a wrong answer: what came back instead (up to 20000 characters)
kindNoOne of: bug (something failed or errored), wrong_answer (an answer was returned but it was wrong or misleading), missing_data (a document, record or source the user expected is not covered), missing_feature (something the user needs that the service does not do), workflow_idea (a step, sequence or repeated manual task the service could handle), structure (how a document was divided or labelled is wrong (its sections, whose words a passage is, numbering)), praise (something that worked well and should be kept), other (anything else)
toolNoThe tool the feedback is about, if one (e.g. the tool that answered wrongly); several: comma-separated
whatNoThe task and what went wrong or what is needed (3-50000 characters)
queryNoThe query or arguments that produced it; only with the user's OK (up to 5000 characters)
messageNoOlder name for `what`, kept so earlier callers still work; prefer `what`
expectedNoFor a wrong answer: what the right answer or result would have been (up to 20000 characters)
severityNolow | normal | high | blocking (blocking: the user cannot do their work)
confirmedNotrue once the user approved sending this; required for authored_by user or agent_drafted
authored_byNouser (their words) | agent_drafted (you wrote it, they approved) | agent (your own observation)
contact_emailNoOnly if the user wants a reply: the address to reply to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / kind / description
      Previous value: -"One of: bug (something failed or errored), wrong_answer (an answer was returned but it was wrong or misleading), missing_data (a document, record or source the user expected is not covered), missing_feature (something the user needs that the service does not do), workflow_idea (a step, sequence or repeated manual task the service could handle), praise (something that worked well and should be kept), other (anything else)"New value: +"One of: bug (something failed or errored), wrong_answer (an answer was returned but it was wrong or misleading), missing_data (a document, record or source the user expected is not covered), missing_feature (something the user needs that the service does not do), workflow_idea (a step, sequence or repeated manual task the service could handle), structure (how a document was divided or labelled is wrong (its sections, whose words a passage is, numbering)), praise (something that worked well and should be kept), other (anything else)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / kind / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "bug",
-  "wrong_answer",
-  "missing_data",
-  "missing_feature",
-  "workflow_idea",
-  "praise",
-  "other"
-]New value: +[
+  "bug",
+  "wrong_answer",
+  "missing_data",
+  "missing_feature",
+  "workflow_idea",
+  "structure",
+  "praise",
+  "other"
+]
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / expected / description
      Previous value: -"For a wrong answer: what the right answer or result would have been"New value: +"For a wrong answer: what the right answer or result would have been (up to 20000 characters)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / got / description
      Previous value: -"For a wrong answer: what came back instead"New value: +"For a wrong answer: what came back instead (up to 20000 characters)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"The query or arguments that produced it; only with the user's OK"New value: +"The query or arguments that produced it; only with the user's OK (up to 5000 characters)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / what / description
      Previous value: -"The task and what went wrong or what is needed (3-2000 characters)"New value: +"The task and what went wrong or what is needed (3-50000 characters)"
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / tool / description
      Previous value: -"The tool the feedback is about, if one (e.g. the tool that answered wrongly)"New value: +"The tool the feedback is about, if one (e.g. the tool that answered wrongly); several: comma-separated"
  4. Changed14 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / authored_by / default
      Previous value: -"user"New value: +null
    • changedInput schema / properties / authored_by / description
      Previous value: -"user | agent_drafted; preserve whose words these are"New value: +"user (their words) | agent_drafted (you wrote it, they approved) | agent (your own observation)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / authored_by / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "user",
+  "agent_drafted",
+  "agent"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirmed / description
      Previous value: -"true only after the user explicitly approved this message"New value: +"true once the user approved sending this; required for authored_by user or agent_drafted"
    • addedInput schema / properties / contact_email
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Only if the user wants a reply: the address to reply to",
+  "title": "Contact Email"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "For a wrong answer: what the right answer or result would have been",
+  "title": "Expected"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / got
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "For a wrong answer: what came back instead",
+  "title": "Got"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / kind / description
      Previous value: -"bug | feature_request | friction | praise"New value: +"One of: bug (something failed or errored), wrong_answer (an answer was returned but it was wrong or misleading), missing_data (a document, record or source the user expected is not covered), missing_feature (something the user needs that the service does not do), workflow_idea (a step, sequence or repeated manual task the service could handle), praise (something that worked well and should be kept), other (anything else)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / kind / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "bug",
+  "wrong_answer",
+  "missing_data",
+  "missing_feature",
+  "workflow_idea",
+  "praise",
+  "other"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / message / description
      Previous value: -"The explicitly approved feedback (3–2000 characters)"New value: +"Older name for `what`, kept so earlier callers still work; prefer `what`"
    • addedInput schema / properties / query
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "The query or arguments that produced it; only with the user's OK",
+  "title": "Query"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / severity
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "low | normal | high | blocking (blocking: the user cannot do their work)",
+  "enum": [
+    "low",
+    "normal",
+    "high",
+    "blocking"
+  ],
+  "title": "Severity"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / tool
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "The tool the feedback is about, if one (e.g. the tool that answered wrongly)",
+  "title": "Tool"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / what
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "The task and what went wrong or what is needed (3-2000 characters)",
+  "title": "What"
+}
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true); the description adds substantial context beyond them: the connect/connect_verify sign-in prerequisite, that every item is read by a person, the confirmed=true gate, privacy handling of user words and confidential details, and that the reply carries a reference id with no promise of a response.

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?

It is long (multiple dense paragraphs), but the length is largely earned by 11 parameters, privacy constraints, and a multi-step consent workflow. Prerequisites are front-loaded, though the description opens with auth rather than the tool's core purpose, slightly delaying the headline action.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For an 11-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description covers the auth prerequisite, the invocation workflow, privacy gates, field guidance, length limits, and even what the response returns (a reference id). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining cross-parameter rules the schema cannot (confirmed=true only after user approval, authored_by='agent' allows unconsented observation, what/expected/got pairing, query only with user OK, length caps). It adds real semantics, though the per-field descriptions in the schema already carry much of the same content.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send feedback about Rekvira to the team that builds it') and enumerates the categories it accepts (bug, wrong answer, missing data, missing feature, workflow idea, praise). It is highly unambiguous about what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'feedback', leaving that relationship to inference.

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?

Includes an explicit 'When to offer it' trigger list (empty/wrong answer, user correction, missing workflow step, repeated manual step, unmet need) plus behavioral guidance ('Offer once, in one sentence; the user's task comes first'). The 'Ask first' rule further constrains when and how to invoke, leaving nothing to guess.

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