Velvoite — EU Financial Regulatory Compliance

list_documents

Read-only

Browse regulatory documents with filters and pagination.

Returns a paginated list of documents with summaries, tags, doc_purpose
(regulation_text, enforcement, reference, irrelevant), and doc_jurisdictions
(e.g. ['eu'], ['fi'], ['de']).
Use this for filtered browsing (e.g. all DORA documents from the last 30 days).
Use search_regulations instead when you have specific keywords to search for.

Args:
    source: Filter by data source code: eur_lex, eba, esma, eiopa, finfsa, bafin.
    regulation: Filter by regulation family code: dora, mica, aml, mifid2, crd_crr, psd, csrd, sfdr, ai_act, emir, solvency, idd, gdpr.
    entity_type: Filter by entity type: credit_institution, payment_institution, e_money, investment_firm, fund_manager, aifm, insurance, pension, crypto_service, crowdfunding, credit_servicer.
    urgency_max: Max urgency level (1=critical, 2=high, 3=medium, 4=low, 5=informational). E.g. 2 returns only critical and high urgency items.
    days: Only return documents from the last N days (1-365).
    page: Page number (default 1).
    per_page: Results per page (default 20, max 100).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No
`page`	No
`source`	No
`per_page`	No
`regulation`	No
`entity_type`	No
`urgency_max`	No

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?

The annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the return format (paginated list with summaries, tags, doc_purpose, doc_jurisdictions), the semantics of urgency_max, and days filtering. No contradiction with annotations. The behavioral traits are well disclosed for a read-only browsing tool.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a structured 'Args:' block. It is somewhat lengthy due to enumerating many allowed values, but each sentence earns its place. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but the structure is clear and scannable.

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 tool's complexity (7 optional filters, pagination), the description is complete: it documents all parameters, explains return fields, provides a usage example, and points to the alternative search_regulations tool. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return structure. The description leaves no major gaps for an agent to misuse the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains all 7 parameters: source and regulation list allowed enum-like values, entity_type lists allowed types, urgency_max explains the ordinal scale (1=critical to 5=informational), days specifies range (1-365), and page/per_page have defaults and max limit. This adds significant meaning 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Browse regulatory documents with filters and pagination.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tool search_regulations by explicitly noting this is for filtered browsing rather than keyword search. The verb 'browse' and resource 'regulatory documents' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for filtered browsing (e.g. all DORA documents from the last 30 days). Use search_regulations instead when you have specific keywords to search for.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool vs. the alternative, eliminating ambiguity.

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?