Skip to main content
Glama

Ansvar: EU Compliance & Legal Intelligence

by eu.ansvar

Describe Capabilities

describe_capabilities
Read-only

Discover what Ansvar can do for your agent. Default (detail='summary') is a compact orientation view: one-line about, your tier summary, counts, a per-category index (id, name, available_to_caller, min_tier, entry_hint, tools/workflows counts, caveats for gated families), meta tool names, next_steps, the paid add-ons directory, and a sources count with a drill-down pointer. detail='full' returns the complete catalog (large — over 100k chars): category prose, the intent-keyed common_use_cases map, anti_patterns, guidance, the tour, and the full sources directory. section='sources' | 'addons' | 'tour' | returns that one section alone; an unknown section is an error listing the valid ids. section='sources' honors detail: the default 'summary' returns a compact directory (per-source id, capped name, availability, aliases where declared + a one-line coverage summary; the premium class flag rides only detail='full'), while detail='full' returns every source's full coverage prose and example queries. detail is validated before section: an invalid detail is an error even when section= is passed. Every view is tier-aware: available_to_caller flags and caveat text reflect the caller, and gated families are shown with caveats, never silently omitted. The workflow lists are reconciled at read time against a TTL-cached snapshot of the live workflow registry (background-refreshed, 15 min): workflow_types_index carries the snapshot status (live / stale / unavailable) and fetched_at, plus registry types the curated catalog does not list yet; catalog_drift lists catalog ids the registry no longer serves (dropped from the payload). service_notices names subsystems in a known degraded state and the exact tools affected; a category's tool_status marks a catalog tool that currently dispatches on zero scopes fleet-wide and is withheld from tools/list and the category roster until a feed serves (e.g. get_changes during the baseline-only interim), with the same reason_code the tool's own refusal returns. Companion to get_my_capabilities (live tier / quota only). Backed by this repo's data/capabilities-catalog.yml (mirrored for documentation as infrastructure/gateway/capabilities-catalog.yml in arch-docs).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailNo'summary' (the default) returns the compact orientation view; 'full' returns the complete catalog, which runs over 100k characters. Any other value is an error, checked before section.summary
sectionNoReturn one section alone: 'sources', 'addons', 'tour', or a category id from the summary view's index. Empty returns every section. An unknown value is an error listing the valid ids.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses extensive behavioral details: tier-aware output, TTL-cached workflow registries, error behavior for invalid detail/section, service notices, catalog drift handling, and the exact meaning of `available_to_caller` flags. This goes far beyond what annotations provide and gives the agent a clear model of the tool's runtime behavior.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single, very long paragraph with many clauses and nested details. While dense with information, it lacks clear structure (e.g., bullet points, separate paragraphs for different options). It is not front-loaded; the crucial summary is followed by a wall of edge cases. The sheer length makes it hard to parse, even though the content is relevant.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 params, 0 required, output schema, annotations), the description covers all relevant aspects: what each detail and section returns, error cases, tier-awareness, caching, and relationship to sibling tools. It is comprehensive and leaves no major gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema descriptions are already detailed (100% coverage), the tool description adds significant semantic value: it explains the interaction between detail and section, the validation order, the size implications of 'full' (>100k chars), and the behavior of unknown sections. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Discover what Ansvar can do for your agent.' It is a read-only capability discovery tool, distinct from siblings like get_my_capabilities (live tier/quota only), which is explicitly mentioned. The verb 'describe' and resource 'capabilities' are specific and differentiate it from other 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 provides detailed usage guidance, including default vs. full detail, section filtering, and error handling precedence. It also names the companion tool get_my_capabilities, implying when to use this tool versus that one. However, it does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or compare with other sibling tools beyond that one reference.

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

All Ansvar: EU Compliance & Legal Intelligence toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few pairs overlap: get_current_step vs get_progress, search_cve vs search_by_product, and describe_capabilities vs get_my_capabilities. The descriptions provide enough detail to differentiate them, but agents could still occasionally misselect.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_*, list_*, search_*, start_*, etc.). Minor deviations like 'diff' and 'search' (single-word) and 'batch_search' (compound modifier) are predictable and don't disrupt the overall consistency.

Tool Count3/5

With 30 tools, the server is on the heavier side. The broad scope (legal intelligence, CVE data, full workflow engine) justifies many tools, but some are internal or niche (probe_corpus, recommend_subagents) and could be hidden. It's borderline between well-scoped and excessive.

Completeness4/5

The legal and CVE domains are well-covered: search, provision lookup, validation, diff, coverage, and detailed CVE enrichment. Workflow management is end-to-end. However, get_regulatory_deadlines is referenced by get_regulatory_intelligence_status but not exposed in the toolset, leaving a notable gap.

Resources