Velvoite — EU Financial Regulatory Compliance

get_deadlines

Read-only

Get upcoming regulatory deadlines for compliance calendar tracking.

Returns obligations with deadlines in chronological order, annotated
with days remaining or days overdue. Essential for compliance planning.

Args:
    entity_type: Filter by entity type code (e.g. 'credit_institution').
    regulation: Filter by regulation code (e.g. 'dora').
    days_ahead: How many days ahead to look (default 90, max 730).
    include_overdue: Include past-due obligations (default true).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days_ahead`	No
`regulation`	No
`entity_type`	No
`include_overdue`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing chronological ordering, days remaining/overdue annotations, the default for include_overdue, and the max for days_ahead. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: opening purpose, return behavior, then parameter list. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, return characteristics, and all parameters. It is complete for a read-only query tool, with no missing critical information.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section fully explains every parameter with examples, defaults, and constraints (e.g., days_ahead max 730). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 function: 'Get upcoming regulatory deadlines for compliance calendar tracking.' It specifies a distinct resource (deadlines) and includes unique behavior (chronological order, days remaining/overdue annotations) that differentiates it from sibling tools like get_obligations.

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 provides a clear use case ('Essential for compliance planning') and the filter parameters imply when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

All Velvoite — EU Financial Regulatory Compliance tools Inspect

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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource (obligations, documents, enforcement, Finnish statutes, CJEU cases) with clear parameter differences. Minor overlap exists between get_obligations and get_canonical_obligations, but descriptions explicitly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools consistently use verb_noun patterns: get_ for retrievals, search_ for queries, list_documents, and audit_taxonomy. No mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles are present.

Tool Count2/5

At 26 tools, the surface exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the large number of specialized search/get tools could be consolidated without losing functionality.

Completeness4/5

The API covers the full regulatory compliance workflow: company profile, obligations, deadlines, documents, enforcement, and multiple legal sources (EU, Finnish, CJEU). Some Finnish/KHO tools return URLs requiring web fetch rather than direct data, which is a minor but by-design gap.

Resources

Need Help?