Skip to main content
Glama
CSOAI-ORG

EU AI Act Compliance MCP

check_compliance

Assess your AI system's compliance with EU AI Act Articles 9-15. Input system details and current posture to receive a pass/fail/unknown checklist for core obligations.

Instructions

Run an EU AI Act compliance check against Articles 9-15 requirements.

Takes system details and current compliance posture, returns a detailed checklist with pass/fail/unknown for each requirement under Articles 9-15 (the core obligations for high-risk AI systems).

Args: system_name: Name of the AI system being assessed. purpose: Description of the system's intended purpose and use context. data_types: Types of data processed (e.g., "personal data, biometric data, health records"). decision_scope: What decisions the system makes or assists with (e.g., "loan approvals, hiring recommendations"). has_risk_management: Whether a documented risk management system exists (Article 9). has_data_governance: Whether data governance practices are in place (Article 10). has_technical_docs: Whether Annex IV technical documentation exists (Article 11). has_logging: Whether automatic event logging is implemented (Article 12). has_transparency_info: Whether transparency/instructions for use exist (Article 13). has_human_oversight: Whether human oversight measures are built in (Article 14). has_accuracy_testing: Whether accuracy, robustness, and cybersecurity are tested (Article 15). caller: Identifier for rate limiting. tier: "free" (10 calls/day) or "pro" (unlimited, $29/mo).

Behavior: This tool is read-only and stateless — it produces analysis output without modifying any external systems, databases, or files. Safe to call repeatedly with identical inputs (idempotent). Free tier: 10/day rate limit. Pro tier: unlimited. No authentication required for basic usage.

When to use: Use this tool when you need to assess, audit, or verify compliance requirements. Ideal for gap analysis, readiness checks, and generating compliance documentation.

When NOT to use: Do not use as a substitute for qualified legal counsel. This tool provides technical compliance guidance, not legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
system_nameYes
purposeYes
data_typesYes
decision_scopeYes
has_risk_managementNo
has_data_governanceNo
has_technical_docsNo
has_loggingNo
has_transparency_infoNo
has_human_oversightNo
has_accuracy_testingNo
callerNoanonymous
api_keyNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's read-only, stateless, and idempotent nature, plus rate limits and authentication requirements. It adds value by detailing safety and idempotency, which is critical for agent decision-making.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Behavior, When to use) and front-loads the core purpose. It is slightly verbose with some redundancy (e.g., repeating rate limits in Behaviors and Args), but remains efficient overall.

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 complexity (13 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all details: parameter explanations, behavioral traits, rate limits, and usage context. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need for detailed return value descriptions, and the description provides a sufficient summary.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter in the Args section, including system_name, purpose, and all boolean flags corresponding to specific articles. This provides meaning far beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 runs an EU AI Act compliance check against Articles 9-15, specifying it takes system details and returns a checklist. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes its purpose, though sibling differentiation is not explicit.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, guiding the agent to use it for compliance assessment and gap analysis while cautioning against substituting for legal advice. This provides clear context and exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/CSOAI-ORG/eu-ai-act-compliance-mcp'

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