Velvoite — EU Financial Regulatory Compliance

get_finnish_statute

Read-only

Return the canonical Finlex URL for a Finnish statute so Claude can fetch its text.
Finlex (finlex.fi) is the official Finnish statute database — no public JSON API exists,
but the URL can be fetched with WebFetch to retrieve the statute text.

Accepts a short law code (e.g. 'TSL', 'OYL', 'SRL', 'LLL') OR a direct year/number
reference (e.g. '2012/747', '2014/610') for statutes not in the known-code list.
Use search_finnish_statutes to find the year/number for an unknown statute.

Known codes include: TSL, OYL, TVL, SRL, AML, MLL, LLL, RPTRL, AIFML, SIJRL,
VYL, FIVAL, VVTL, HETIL, LSL, KSL, YTL, VLL, TAL, KEKSINTOL, MRIL.

Args:
    law_code: Short law code (e.g. 'TSL', 'SRL') or year/number (e.g. '2012/747').
              Case-insensitive.
    section: Optional section in 'chapter:paragraph' format (e.g. '3:5', '6:3').
             Omit for the full act.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`section`	No
`law_code`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds important context: Finlex has no public JSON API, so the URL must be fetched via WebFetch, and the tool returns a URL, not the statute text. It does not mention failure modes, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 opens with the core purpose, then provides useful background, input modes, and an explicit list of known codes. The structure is clear (paragraphs and an Args section), and every sentence adds value.

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?

It fully covers purpose, input syntax, when to use an alternative, external fetch behavior, and defaults. Given the tool's simple scope and the presence of an output schema, no critical information is missing.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter-semantics burden. It fully explains law_code (short code OR year/number, case-insensitive) and section ('chapter:paragraph' format, omit for full act), which is not present in the 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 description states a specific action ('Return the canonical Finlex URL for a Finnish statute') and clearly identifies the resource and outcome. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_finnish_statutes and other Finnish legal tools.

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?

It explicitly says to use search_finnish_statutes for unknown statutes and specifies the two accepted input forms (law code or year/number). This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names an alternative.

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?