Skip to main content
Glama
CSOAI-ORG

EU AI Act Compliance MCP

predict_risk_neural

Predict AI system compliance risks including overall risk, violation probability, remediation urgency, and audit priority. Neural network model improves accuracy with each use.

Instructions

Neural network-based risk prediction that improves from every compliance check. Predicts overall risk, violation probability, remediation urgency, and audit priority.

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. Behavioral Transparency: - Side Effects: This tool is read-only and produces no side effects. It does not modify any external state, databases, or files. All output is computed in-memory and returned directly to the caller. - Authentication: No authentication required for basic usage. Pro/Enterprise tiers require a valid MEOK API key passed via the MEOK_API_KEY environment variable. - Rate Limits: Free tier: 10 calls/day. Pro tier: unlimited. Rate limit headers are included in responses (X-RateLimit-Remaining, X-RateLimit-Reset). - Error Handling: Returns structured error objects with 'error' key on failure. Never raises unhandled exceptions. Invalid inputs return descriptive validation errors. - Idempotency: Fully idempotent — calling with the same inputs always produces the same output. Safe to retry on timeout or transient failure. - Data Privacy: No input data is stored, logged, or transmitted to external services. All processing happens locally within the MCP server process.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
system_nameYes
system_typeNo
uses_biometricNo
uses_health_dataNo
uses_financial_dataNo
has_human_oversightNo
affected_usersNo
sectorNo
has_documentationNo
prior_incidentsNo
deployed_cross_borderNo
model_explainableNo
api_keyNo
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description covers side effects (read-only, stateless), authentication (no auth for basic), rate limits (10/day free), error handling (structured errors), idempotency, and data privacy. This is comprehensive and exceeds the minimum needed.

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 description is well-organized with sections, but it contains redundancy (e.g., behavior and transparency sections overlap). Some sentences could be merged or removed without losing clarity.

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 complexity (13 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides strong behavioral context but lacks parameter input guidance. The agent might struggle to correctly populate all fields, leaving gaps in completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage and 13 parameters, the description fails to add meaning beyond parameter names. It does not explain any parameter, leaving the agent to infer from titles. Compensation is required but absent.

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: neural network-based risk prediction that produces overall risk, violation probability, remediation urgency, and audit priority. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the neural network approach and the specific outputs, though not explicitly contrasting with others.

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, advising use for compliance assessment and cautioning against substituting for legal counsel. This provides clear guidance on appropriate contexts.

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