romanian-financial-regulation-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: full-text search, specific provision retrieval, sourcebook listing, enforcement search, status checking, and server metadata. No overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'ro_fin_' prefix with a verb_noun pattern (search_regulations, get_regulation, list_sourcebooks, search_enforcement, check_currency, about).
Tool Count5/5
6 tools is appropriate for the domain—covers essential operations without being too few or too many.
Completeness5/5
The server provides search, retrieval, listing, enforcement checking, and regulatory status. For a read-only regulatory lookup server, the surface is complete.
Average 4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'searches' and 'returns' results, with no mention of read-only nature, side effects, rate limits, or pagination. This is insufficient for full transparency.
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 two sentences long, directly states the purpose and return value, and contains no wasted words. It is efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It does not explain what ASF and BNR are, does not describe the return format or fields beyond 'matching enforcement decisions', and lacks any discussion of pagination or result limits.
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?
The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds marginal value. It provides context about action types (fine, ban, restriction, warning) that align with the enum, but beyond that it does not enhance parameter understanding significantly.
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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'ASF and BNR enforcement actions' with specific types ('sanctiuni, avertismente, and interdictii'). It also mentions it returns matching enforcement decisions, distinguishing it from siblings like ro_fin_search_regulations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description mentions it returns status and effective date, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, authentication needs, or error behavior. Moderate transparency.
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 one sentence, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part 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?
Given the simple nature (single parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers input and output. No missing critical information.
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% for the single parameter. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Full provision reference to check', so baseline of 3.
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 checks whether a Romanian financial regulation provision reference is currently in force, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search or get regulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage (checking currency of a reference), but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives compared to siblings, relying on context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states it returns matching documents. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only (safe to call multiple times), any rate limits, authentication requirements, or the output format (e.g., list of IDs, snippets). This omission forces the agent to guess behavior from the schema.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters but no output schema, the description should explain what the response looks like (e.g., list of regulation IDs with metadata). It only says 'returns matching...', leaving the structure unclear. The tool's complexity is moderate, but the description fails to fully equip an agent to use it correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema coverage is 100% and baseline is 3, the description adds domain context by naming specific regulatory bodies (ASF, BNR) and document types. This helps an agent understand the 'sourcebook' parameter's significance and that 'query' should be in Romanian. The examples in the schema description for 'query' further aid interpretation.
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 it performs full-text search across Romanian financial regulation provisions and lists the specific document types returned (ASF norme, instructiuni, BNR regulamente, norme). This distinctively differentiates it from siblings like ro_fin_get_regulation (retrieve specific regulation) and ro_fin_search_enforcement.
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 clear context on when to use the tool: when searching Romanian financial regulations. It implicitly tells the agent not to use this tool for retrieving a single regulation (use ro_fin_get_regulation) or searching enforcement (use ro_fin_search_enforcement). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return content (version, data source, tool list) but does not mention any behavioral details such as idempotency, side effects, or authorization requirements. Adequate for a read-only metadata endpoint.
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 a single sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with the action and object. Every word earns its place, and no extraneous information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple info tool with no input schema and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It lists the specific metadata fields returned. Could be slightly more detailed about the format, but it meets the minimum completeness for the given complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description correctly notes the tool takes no input. With no parameters to document, this is effectively a baseline score of 4.
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 purpose: return metadata about the MCP server including version, data source, and tool list. It distinguishes well from sibling tools which deal with regulations and enforcement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving server metadata but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use, nor does it mention alternatives. The context is clear enough given the simple nature of the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic function without disclosing any behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a read-only lookup, this might be sufficient, but it lacks depth.
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 two sentences long, with the first stating the purpose and the second giving examples. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and how to use it with examples. However, it could mention that the sourcebook must be a valid identifier from the list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already described. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of valid references, which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's generic descriptions.
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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'Romanian financial regulation provision' with distinct identifiers 'sourcebook' and 'reference'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ro_fin_search_regulations by focusing on a specific provision retrieval.
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 explicit examples of valid references (e.g., 'ASF_NORME 15/2015 art.3') and implies that this tool is for fetching a specific provision, not for searching or listing. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where the reference might be malformed or when to use alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only list operation with no side effects. While minimal, it suffices for this simple, parameterless tool.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. The action ('list') and scope are front-loaded, making it instantly understandable.
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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully specifies what the tool returns (names and descriptions) and its coverage (ASF and BNR). No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description naturally adds no parameter details. The schema coverage is trivial at 100%, earning a baseline score of 4.
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 lists all Romanian financial regulation sourcebooks with their names and descriptions, explicitly covering ASF and BNR outputs. It is distinct from sibling tools like search or get.
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 context is clear: use this tool to obtain a list of sourcebooks. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are stated, but the purpose is self-evident among the set of related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

romanian-financial-regulation-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![romanian-financial-regulation-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Ansvar-Systems/romanian-financial-regulation-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Ansvar-Systems/romanian-financial-regulation-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![romanian-financial-regulation-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Ansvar-Systems/romanian-financial-regulation-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Ansvar-Systems/romanian-financial-regulation-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Ansvar-Systems/romanian-financial-regulation-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server