Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Ansvar: EU Compliance & Legal Intelligence

by eu.ansvar
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Diff

diff
Read-only

Compare two versions of a legal provision to see what changed. Use this when someone asks 'what changed in the latest DORA amendment', 'how did this article change between versions', or 'show me the differences in GDPR Article 17 after the update'. Returns a structured diff with added, removed, and modified text. The text content is one JSON document. Its evidence_summary field carries the 'Sources used' markdown table (the audit receipt per returned row) or a labelled zero-result note. Result rows carry url/title/subtitle display fields alongside their citation when available. meta.render_contract carries the versioned evidence-curation contract.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "jurisdiction": "<jurisdiction>",
      "law": "<law>",
      "article": "<article>"
    },
    "name": "diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lawYesInstrument the provision belongs to, as a framework id ('GDPR', 'DORA') or the corpus's own law identifier.
articleYesArticle or section number within the instrument, such as '17' or '5(1)(a)'.
to_dateNoEnd of the comparison window as an ISO date. Empty means the version currently in force.
from_dateNoStart of the comparison window as an ISO date, e.g. '2024-01-01'. Empty means the corpus picks the earliest version it holds.
jurisdictionYesISO-2 code of the jurisdiction that owns the provision, such as EU or SE.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / article / description
      Added value: +"Article or section number within the instrument, such as '17' or '5(1)(a)'."
    • addedInput schema / properties / from_date / description
      Added value: +"Start of the comparison window as an ISO date, e.g. '2024-01-01'. Empty means the corpus picks the earliest version it holds."
    • addedInput schema / properties / jurisdiction / description
      Added value: +"ISO-2 code of the jurisdiction that owns the provision, such as EU or SE."
    • addedInput schema / properties / law / description
      Added value: +"Instrument the provision belongs to, as a framework id ('GDPR', 'DORA') or the corpus's own law identifier."
    • addedInput schema / properties / to_date / description
      Added value: +"End of the comparison window as an ISO date. Empty means the version currently in force."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds useful behavior: the diff buckets (added/removed/modified), the single-JSON-document payload, the evidence_summary audit-receipt table, and the versioned render contract in meta. It does not state pagination, size limits, or what happens when no versions are found in the window.

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?

Purpose and usage examples are front-loaded and each earns its place. The tail is somewhat padded with output plumbing (url/title/subtitle display fields, meta.render_contract) that borders on implementation detail rather than selection guidance.

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, the description takes on the burden of describing the return, and it does so at a reasonable level: buckets, evidence_summary, display fields, render contract. Minor gaps remain around empty/zero-result behavior detail and whether multiple articles can be requested.

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 law, article, jurisdiction, from_date, and to_date are all documented in the schema itself. The description only implies a version window ('between versions', 'after the update') without adding format or defaulting semantics beyond what the schema already says.

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+resource pair: compare two versions of a legal provision and report what changed. This clearly separates it from retrieval siblings like get_provision, but it never distinguishes itself from get_changes, which sounds like it could overlap with the same task.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasings ('what changed in the latest DORA amendment', 'how did this article change between versions'), which gives the agent strong pattern-matching cues for when to call it. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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
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