Skip to main content
Glama

Ansvar: EU Compliance & Legal Intelligence

Get Regulatory Intelligence Status

get_regulatory_intelligence_status
Read-only

Report what this service actually monitors and how current each source is: the enrolled sources, their publisher, channel kind and jurisdictions, when each last synced successfully, its freshness state (current / stale / critical / unfetched / baseline-only), how many records it holds, and when its baseline backfill ran. Also reports the state of the signed licensing verdict that governs which sources may be fetched at all.

Read this before concluding anything from an empty search: a source that is not enrolled, or whose state is critical, is not covered, and this tool says so plainly. enrolled means the current verdict clears the source AND its acquisition proof is verified.

Also reports the state of the curated obligations calendar behind get_regulatory_deadlines: obligations.dataset_state is ok (the newest signed dataset is what serves), degraded (a newer dataset exists that this service could not read, so the previous one is still serving — resolution_reason says why, anomalous_release names the release, degraded_since says when that was last confirmed), or unavailable (none ever loaded, so the deadlines tool refuses). It also reports how many curated rows and pending-instrument rows are held, when the curators last changed the dataset, and which signed generation this service consumed. That is the free surface for a premium tool — a caller whose deadlines request refused, or came back degraded, can find out here why, without a tier.

The lane_f block reports the fleet-derived event lane: publications detected on the official indexes the corpus fleet itself watches, consumed only when THREE gates pass — the signed licensing verdict clears the fleet source (with verified acquisition), a signed per-target eligibility decision exists at the detection's exact target configuration digest, and a current signed events artifact verified. It carries the events-artifact state, the inbox counts (pending / stored / invalid), and suppressed_duplicates — publications observed by both an enrolled registry source and a fleet target are served ONCE, by the registry lane, and every suppression is counted here rather than silently dropped.

The verdict block also carries disposition_summary: the disposition-class counts exactly as the consumed signed artifact delivered them, or null. Null is 'this service has no counts to report' and never 'the register is empty' — the consumed generation carried none, no verdict has been consumed yet, or this server is running ahead of the migration that stores them. Its keys are exactly enrolled_event_feed (fleet event-feed sources in the signed launch set), cleared_event_feed (how many of those the verdict clears) and register. register is one of exactly two shapes: the projection, whose keys are exactly generated_at, fleet_sha, total_rows, by_disposition (keys exactly event_feed, signal_only, blocked) and unclassified; or unavailable_reason alone, which says the register could not be read when the artifact was published. The register numbers project a separate artifact generated at its own time — read its generated_at and fleet_sha before comparing them with anything else here, and read unclassified before treating the classes as complete.

Example: "Using Ansvar, which regulatory sources are you monitoring and how fresh are they?"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it explains that unenrolled or critical sources are not covered, that `null` disposition counts never mean the register is empty, that duplicates are suppressed and counted rather than silently dropped, and that the obligations dataset can be degraded or unavailable. This is rich, non-redundant disclosure.

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 an approximately 450-word essay dense with nested key specifications, backticks, and repeated state explanations. It is front-loaded with purpose, but far from appropriately sized: many granular return-value details could be compressed or delegated to an output schema (which is absent). It reads like documentation rather than a tool description.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so exhaustively: source enrollment, freshness states, licensing verdict state, obligations dataset state, the `lane_f` fleet lane, and the `disposition_summary` block with its null semantics and exact key shapes. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the tool's output 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to clarify, and it does not attempt to add meaning to a non-existent schema.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Report what this service actually monitors and how current each source is.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming `get_regulatory_deadlines` and positioning itself as 'the free surface for a premium tool.' An agent can tell what this tool does and how it differs from the deadlines tool without opening either.

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?

It gives explicit usage contexts: 'Read this before concluding anything from an empty search' and 'a caller whose deadlines request refused, or came back degraded, can find out here why.' It implicitly contrasts with `get_regulatory_deadlines`, but stops short of stating when not to use this tool, so it misses the top mark.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.