Ansvar: EU Compliance & Legal Intelligence

Submit Response

submit_response

Provide an answer to the current step in a compliance workflow. Use this when someone provides information requested by the workflow, such as 'our system processes health data' or 'we use AES-256 encryption'. The workflow engine validates the response and advances to the next step. Pass user_acknowledged=true only after the user has supplied the fields listed in user_provided_fields. evidence_references accepts document UUIDs, doc:// segment URIs, or regulatory URLs. For an unattended gate, pass approved_by='auto' and leave user_acknowledged=false so the report does not misrepresent automation as human review. approved_by accepts only 'auto'; human review is asserted via user_acknowledged, never by naming an approver.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`step_id`	Yes	Id of the step being answered, as reported by get_current_step.
`responses`	Yes	The step's answers, keyed by the field names the step asked for. Values follow the expected input format get_current_step returned for that step.
`approved_by`	No	Accepts only 'auto', which marks the gate as passed unattended. Human review is asserted through user_acknowledged, never by naming an approver here.
`workflow_id`	Yes	Id of the workflow run, as returned by start_workflow. Recover a lost id with list_workflows.
`fetched_data`	No	Supporting material the agent gathered for this step — search results, provision text, document excerpts — passed through to the workflow engine alongside the answers.
`evidence_tier`	No	The evidence grade backing this answer, when the step asks for one. Omit unless the step's contract names it.
`compliance_level`	No	The compliance level asserted for this step, when the step asks for one. Omit unless the step's contract names it.
`user_acknowledged`	No	Set true only after the human has supplied the fields listed in the step's user_provided_fields. This is the assertion of human review; leave false for an unattended gate so the report does not present automation as human review.
`evidence_references`	No	References backing the answer: document UUIDs, doc:// segment URIs, or regulatory URLs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedJul 31, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / approved_by / description

Added value: +"Accepts only 'auto', which marks the gate as passed unattended. Human review is asserted through user_acknowledged, never by naming an approver here."

addedInput schema / properties / compliance_level / description

Added value: +"The compliance level asserted for this step, when the step asks for one. Omit unless the step's contract names it."

addedInput schema / properties / evidence_references / description

Added value: +"References backing the answer: document UUIDs, doc:// segment URIs, or regulatory URLs."

addedInput schema / properties / evidence_tier / description

Added value: +"The evidence grade backing this answer, when the step asks for one. Omit unless the step's contract names it."

addedInput schema / properties / fetched_data / description

Added value: +"Supporting material the agent gathered for this step — search results, provision text, document excerpts — passed through to the workflow engine alongside the answers."

addedInput schema / properties / responses / description

Added value: +"The step's answers, keyed by the field names the step asked for. Values follow the expected input format get_current_step returned for that step."

addedInput schema / properties / step_id / description

Added value: +"Id of the step being answered, as reported by get_current_step."

addedInput schema / properties / user_acknowledged / description

Added value: +"Set true only after the human has supplied the fields listed in the step's user_provided_fields. This is the assertion of human review; leave false for an unattended gate so the report does not present automation as human review."

addedInput schema / properties / workflow_id / description

Added value: +"Id of the workflow run, as returned by start_workflow. Recover a lost id with list_workflows."

First observedJul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description explains that 'The workflow engine validates the response and advances to the next step,' revealing the tool's side effects beyond the annotations. It also highlights the guardrail against misrepresenting automation as human review by asserting approved_by only accepts 'auto', which is valuable behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is detailed but every sentence earns its place: it opens with the purpose, followed by usage triggers, then key parameter behaviors, and closes with the auto-approval caveat. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 9 parameters and complex gating semantics, with no filler.

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 complex input schema, the description covers the critical context: what the workflow does, when to use it, how to handle evidence references, and how to correctly assert human vs. automated approval. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values, so the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 adds meaningful semantic nuance by providing real-world examples of responses, clarifying evidence_references accepted formats, and reinforcing the distinction between approved_by='auto' and user_acknowledged for human review, which goes beyond the schema parameter 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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Provide an answer to the current step in a compliance workflow.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like start_workflow, cancel_workflow, and get_current_step by focusing on submitting a response for the current step.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Use this when someone provides information requested by the workflow' and gives concrete examples. It also covers conditional usage for unattended gates, clearly specifying when to set approved_by='auto' and user_acknowledged=false, which orients the agent on when to use this variant.

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 tools Inspect

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.