Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ai-act-mcp

ai-act-mcp

by a2welt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

next_deadlines

Retrieve EU AI Act compliance deadlines, with optional filtering by risk tier for targeted compliance planning.

Instructions

Return the EU AI Act compliance timeline, optionally highlighting the date relevant to a given risk tier.

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": "next_deadlines"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tierNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what the return format is, or any rate limits. It only states the basic function, leaving significant gaps for a no-annotation scenario.

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 17 words, extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no unnecessary fluff.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the general functionality. However, it does not specify what the returned timeline contains or how dates are highlighted, leaving some user questions unanswered.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the parameter 'tier' optionally highlights a date relevant to a given risk tier, adding some meaning. However, it does not elaborate on the enum values or the default behavior when the parameter is omitted.

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 returns the EU AI Act compliance timeline, with an optional filter by risk tier. The verb 'Return' and resource 'EU AI Act compliance timeline' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like check_obligations.

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 tool is used to get compliance deadlines, optionally filtered by tier, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative guidance is provided.

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