Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIR MCP Server

AIR MCP Server

by VericyIO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Submit EU AI Act fact answers

air_submit_fact_answers
Destructive

Submit answers for open EU AI Act facts to re-derive the assessment tier without a new scan; stored answers guide later scans and null clears a kept answer.

Instructions

Submit answers for open EU AI Act facts and re-derive the tier on this assessment, with no new scan. Pass factPath + value + a short justification in the person's words. An array fact accepts only its allowedValues; any other word is refused with 422 naming the allowed values. Answers are kept on the project, so later scans start from them; null ("I don't know") clears a kept answer. Answering a conflicted fact replaces the kept answer. Requires assessments:write.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "assessmentPid": "<assessmentPid>",
      "answers": "<answers>"
    },
    "name": "air_submit_fact_answers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYes
assessmentPidYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Substantial disclosure beyond the annotations: array facts reject disallowed words with a 422 that names the allowed values, answers persist on the project and seed later scans, null clears a kept answer, and answering a conflicted fact replaces the kept answer. It also states the required scope (assessments:write). This is consistent with destructiveHint=true, since clearing/replacing kept answers is a real overwrite.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its no-rescan effect, then the call shape, then edge cases. Dense and largely waste-free, though a few clauses are packed into long sentences that could be split for scanability.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: inputs, validation failure mode, persistence semantics, clearing behavior, and auth scope. Nothing material is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the load, and it does: factPath + value pairing, the requirement for a short justification in the person's own words, the array-value constraint, and the null 'I don't know' semantics. Only evidenceChunkIds goes unexplained, keeping it below 5.

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 names a specific verb (submit answers), the exact resource (open EU AI Act facts), and the side effect (re-derive the tier on this assessment, no new scan). That last clause cleanly separates it from siblings like air_run_assessment_from_file or air_retry_assessment, which would re-scan.

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?

It makes the usage context clear: this is for open facts, takes existing answers, and explicitly does not trigger a new scan. It also implies air_list_open_facts as the discovery step. It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead when...' routing statement, so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools