Velvoite — EU Financial Regulatory Compliance

search_regulations

Read-only

Search the regulatory corpus using keyword / trigram matching.

Uses PostgreSQL trigram similarity on document titles and summaries.
Returns documents ranked by relevance with summaries and classification tags.

Prefer list_documents with filters (regulation, entity_type, source) first.
Only use this for free-text keyword search when structured filters aren't sufficient.

Args:
    query: Search terms (e.g. 'strong customer authentication', 'ICT risk', 'AML reporting').
    per_page: Number of results (default 20, max 100).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`per_page`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description discloses the underlying mechanism (PostgreSQL trigram similarity on titles/summaries) and the output characteristics (ranked by relevance, with summaries and classification tags). No contradictions with 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 succinct: a brief purpose opener, a technical detail sentence, a returns sentence, usage guidance, and parameter docs. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers inputs, usage context, behavioral expectations, and parameter semantics comprehensively for a search tool with moderate complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description thoroughly documents both parameters: 'query' with concrete examples and 'per_page' with default and maximum. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of explanatory text.

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: searching the regulatory corpus using keyword/trigram matching. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_documents by explicitly naming it as the structured-filter alternative, and from other search tools by specifying the corpus scope.

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 guidance: 'Prefer list_documents with filters first' and 'Only use this for free-text keyword search when structured filters aren't sufficient.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus 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?