Skip to main content
Glama

Ansvar: EU Compliance & Legal Intelligence

by eu.ansvar

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.

Response shape: verdict (licensing-verdict state), obligations (calendar dataset state), lane_f (events pipeline counters), and sources (per-source enrolment, publisher, jurisdictions, last sync, freshness state).

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the meaning of 'enrolled,' the freshness state taxonomy, the degraded dataset behavior with resolution_reason and anomalous_release, and the condition under which the deadlines tool refuses to serve. This fully discloses what the tool reports and how states should be interpreted.

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?

The description is long but well-structured into paragraphs covering source status, obligations calendar state, response shape, and an example. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds necessary interpretive context; while a bit verbose, every section serves agent decision-making.

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 a no-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: it defines all reported states, explains edge cases, gives the response shape, and provides an example natural-language prompt. An agent would know exactly what this tool returns and when to rely on it.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter-level semantics are not needed. The description focuses entirely on return semantics and state interpretation, which is the appropriate substitute; the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Report what this service actually monitors and how current each source is.' It clearly enumerates the returned dimensions (sources, freshness states, verdict, obligations dataset state), making the tool's scope unmistakable and differentiating it from generic status or freshness 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 clear context for when to use the tool, including explicitly telling callers to read it before concluding anything from an empty search and explaining it is the diagnostic surface for refused or degraded get_regulatory_deadlines calls. It does not name sibling alternatives directly, but the specialized use cases are clearly articulated.

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