Velvoite — EU Financial Regulatory Compliance

get_eurlex_document

Read-only

Look up any EUR-Lex document by CELEX number via CELLAR SPARQL (live).
Returns title, date, and URLs for the full text.
For CJEU case law (CELEX starting with 61 or 62): queries CELLAR SPARQL and
returns title, date, and URL. For legislative acts (regulations, directives —
CELEX starting with 3): returns the EUR-Lex URL directly (CELLAR does not
reliably index final legislative acts via SPARQL).
Use get_eu_regulation_article for known regulation codes (gdpr, dora, mica…).
Requires Velvoite Premium API key.

CELEX format:
  32022R2554  → Regulation (year 2022, number 2554) = DORA
  32014L0065  → Directive (year 2014, number 65)   = MiFID II
  62021CJ0089 → CJEU judgment, case C-89/21
  32023R1114  → Regulation (year 2023, number 1114) = MiCA

Args:
    celex: CELEX number, e.g. '32022R2554'. Case-insensitive.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`celex`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses the Velvoite Premium API key requirement, the live nature of the query, and a known limitation: 'CELLAR does not reliably index final legislative acts via SPARQL.' This adds context beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, with no contradiction.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, but it is somewhat lengthy due to multiple examples. All content is useful, yet some examples could be condensed without losing meaning.

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 (so return values are structurally defined), the description covers the tool's scope, limitations, auth requirements, and alternatives. It is complete for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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?

The schema provides no description for the celex parameter (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates with an 'Args' section, CELEX format examples, and case-insensitivity note.

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 action and resource: 'Look up any EUR-Lex document by CELEX number via CELLAR SPARQL (live).' It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly recommending get_eu_regulation_article for known regulation codes.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use get_eu_regulation_article for known regulation codes (gdpr, dora, mica…).' Additionally, it explains when CELLAR SPARQL is used vs. direct URL for legislative acts, clarifying alternatives and limitations.

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?