Velvoite — EU Financial Regulatory Compliance

get_obligation_summary

Read-only

Get obligation counts grouped by regulation_code.

Returns total count and per-regulation breakdown with status counts
(active, upcoming, overdue, expired) plus verified and with_deadline counts.
No full obligation text — just counts for a quick overview.

Args:
    entity_type: Filter to obligations applying to this entity type (e.g. 'credit_institution', 'payment_institution').
    actor_role: Comma-separated actor roles to filter by (e.g. 'financial_entity,credit_institution').
        Use get_company_profile to see the company's roles, or get_actor_roles to browse all available roles.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`actor_role`	No
`entity_type`	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 doesn't need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral context by stating the output is counts only, the grouping by regulation_code, and the status breakdowns. It also sets expectations about what is NOT included (full obligation text), which goes beyond 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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, then the return summary, then parameter details. Every sentence provides value without redundant information. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 an output schema exists (so return fields are documented elsewhere), the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, what it returns, what filters are available, and how to find valid filter values. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool appropriately.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters with concrete examples ('credit_institution', 'financial_entity,credit_institution') and referral to related tools for discovering valid roles. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('obligation counts grouped by regulation_code'), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating 'No full obligation text — just counts for a quick overview.' This directly separates it from get_obligations and similar retrieval 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 implies when to use this tool ('quick overview') and contrasts it with full obligation text, but it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (e.g., 'use get_obligations for full details'). It does provide excellent guidance for parameter values by pointing to get_company_profile and get_actor_roles.

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?