Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

mcp-eu-ai-act

by io.github.ark-forge
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

gdpr_scan_project

Find every file in your project that touches personal data — no arguments, 5 seconds, free. Detects PII fields, cookies, tracking pixels, analytics SDKs, and consent flows. Returns flagged files with data categories and applicable GDPR articles. GDPR fines reach 20M EUR or 4% turnover. For EU AI Act + GDPR together, call combined_compliance_report().

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gdpr_scan_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathNoPath to the project root. Leave empty or pass '.' to scan the current directory..

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_path / default
      Added value: +"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_path / description
      Added value: +"Path to the project root. Leave empty or pass '.' to scan the current directory."
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "project_path"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses return value composition ('flagged files with data categories and applicable GDPR articles') and implies a read-only scan ('Find every file'). It also mentions '5 seconds' and 'free' as operational traits. The 'no arguments' claim is slightly offset by the optional project_path parameter, but not harmful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The utility sentence 'GDPR fines reach 20M EUR or 4% turnover' is irrelevant to selecting or invoking the tool and wastes a slot. The useful information (function, speed, cost, output) is front-loaded, but the fine scare line is extraneous.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the description sufficiently explains what it does, what it scans for, and what it returns. It also provides a pointer to an alternative for combined requirements, making it complete for practical use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with a single optional parameter already well-described ('Leave empty or pass '.' to scan the current directory'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond saying 'no arguments', which actually understates the optional project_path parameter. Thus baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find every file in your project that touches personal data.' It enumerates what is detected (PII, cookies, tracking pixels, analytics SDKs, consent flows) and distinguishes itself from generic scan_project by focusing on GDPR. It also points to combined_compliance_report for a different scope.

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 provides context on when to use this tool ('no arguments, 5 seconds, free') and explicitly directs users to combine with EU AI Act via combined_compliance_report(). However, it does not articulate exclusions or contrast with sibling tools like gdpr_check_compliance or scan_project.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mcp-eu-ai-act toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources