Which integrations are available for this server?

Enables regulatory monitoring notifications to be sent to Slack channels, allowing users to receive real-time, daily, or weekly compliance alerts and updates on GDPR, AI Act, and other European regulatory topics directly within Slack.

How do I use ,APEX MCP Server?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@,APEX MCP Server search for recent GDPR and AI Act regulatory updates" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

de en es ja ko ru zh

,APEX MCP Server

by gbesse

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

APEX MCP Server

Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for APEX - Regulatory intelligence platform for European enterprises.

Installation

From npm (recommended)

npm install -g @apex-dev/mcp-server

From source

git clone https://github.com/apex-dev/mcp-server.git
cd mcp-server
npm install
npm run build

Related MCP server: EU AI Act Compliance MCP Server

Configuration

Add to your MCP configuration file:

Claude Desktop (~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "apex": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@apex-dev/mcp-server"],
      "env": {
        "APEX_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here",
        "APEX_API_BASE": "https://api.apex.dev"
      }
    }
  }
}

Cursor (~/.cursor/mcp.json):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "apex": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@apex-dev/mcp-server"],
      "env": {
        "APEX_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

Cline (VS Code extension - configure in settings):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "apex": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@apex-dev/mcp-server"],
      "env": {
        "APEX_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

Available Tools

`apex_search`

Search regulatory publications from European sources (RGPD, ISO27001, AI Act, etc.)

Parameters:

query (string): Search terms
topics (array): Topic IDs to filter
from (string): Start date (ISO 8601)
to (string): End date (ISO 8601)
limit (number): Max results

Example: "Search for GDPR and AI regulations from the last 30 days"

`apex_create_topic`

Create a new monitoring topic.

Parameters:

name (string): Topic name
keywords (array): Keywords to monitor

Example: "Create a topic called AI_REGULATION with keywords: artificial intelligence, machine learning, AI Act"

`apex_list_topics`

List all available monitoring topics.

`apex_create_follow`

Set up monitoring with notifications.

Parameters:

topics (array): Topic IDs to follow
frequency (string): "realtime", "daily", or "weekly"
channels (array): ["email", "slack", "webhook"]

`apex_generate_brief`

Generate a compliance brief.

Parameters:

period (string): "daily", "weekly", or "custom"
topics (array): Topic IDs to include
format (string): "markdown", "json", or "html"

Use Cases

For European TPE/PME

Monitor RGPD compliance updates
Track ISO27001 certification requirements
Stay updated on AI Act implementation

For Developers

Get regulatory context when building compliance-aware applications
Automate compliance monitoring in CI/CD pipelines
Generate regulatory briefs for stakeholders

For AI Agents

Access real-time regulatory intelligence
Create compliance monitoring workflows
Generate structured compliance reports

API Integration

For direct API integration (without MCP), see: https://docs.apex.dev

Development

# Install dependencies
npm install

# Build
npm run build

# Run in development
npm run dev

# Test with MCP inspector
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node dist/index.js

License

Available Tools

5 tools

apex_create_followC

Create a monitoring follow with notifications for regulatory updates

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`topics`	Yes	Topic IDs to follow
`frequency`	No	Notification frequency
`channels`	No	Notification channels

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a follow with notifications, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether the follow is reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a creation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'monitoring follow' entails, how notifications work, or what happens after creation. For a tool that likely involves persistent monitoring and notifications, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (topics, frequency, channels) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how topics relate to regulatory updates or the implications of frequency choices. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a monitoring follow') and the purpose ('with notifications for regulatory updates'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like apex_create_topic or apex_list_topics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from apex_generate_brief or apex_search, which might also involve monitoring or regulatory content, so it's not fully sibling-distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing existing topics from apex_list_topics, or when to choose this over apex_generate_brief for regulatory updates. Without any context on usage scenarios or exclusions, the agent lacks direction.

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

apex_create_topicC

Create a new monitoring topic for regulatory intelligence tracking

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Topic name (e.g., "AI_REGULATION")
`keywords`	Yes	Keywords to monitor

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates something, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity as a creation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral traits like side effects, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly in context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('name' and 'keywords') adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new monitoring topic for regulatory intelligence tracking'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apex_create_follow' or 'apex_list_topics', which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apex_list_topics' or 'apex_search'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether topics must be unique or if there are limits, and doesn't mention when not to use it.

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

apex_generate_briefC

Generate a compliance brief summarizing recent regulatory publications

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`period`	No	Brief period
`topics`	No	Topic IDs to include
`format`	No	Output format

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'generates' a brief, implying a read-only or generative operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, affects data, or details the output structure. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (generating summaries with three parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or output format details, leaving gaps that could hinder correct tool invocation by an agent.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear enum values and descriptions for all three parameters. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining 'custom' period usage or topic ID sources. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('compliance brief'), specifying it summarizes recent regulatory publications. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like apex_search or apex_list_topics, which might also involve regulatory content but serve different functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like apex_search for broader queries or apex_list_topics for topic management, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

apex_list_topicsC

List all available monitoring topics

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`active`	No	Filter by active status

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation but doesn't mention whether it's paginated, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'monitoring topics' are, what the output format looks like, or any behavioral constraints. Given the lack of structured data, the description should provide more context.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'active' documented as filtering by active status. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all available monitoring topics'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'apex_search', which might also list topics with different filtering capabilities, preventing a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apex_search' or 'apex_create_topic'. It mentions no prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

apex_searchC

Search regulatory publications and compliance updates from European sources (RGPD, ISO27001, etc.)

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Search terms (e.g., "RGPD artificial intelligence")
`topics`	No	Topic IDs to filter by
`from`	No	Start date (ISO 8601 format)
`to`	No	End date (ISO 8601 format)
`limit`	No	Maximum results (default: 20)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 mentions searching but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search results look like (e.g., format, pagination). This is a significant gap for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search regulatory publications...') and includes relevant examples. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, result format) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured output information, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters (query, topics, from, to, limit) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how topics relate to European sources or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('regulatory publications and compliance updates from European sources'), with specific examples like RGPD and ISO27001. It distinguishes this as a search tool, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like apex_generate_brief or apex_list_topics, which might also involve regulatory content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like apex_list_topics (which might list topics without searching) or apex_generate_brief (which might summarize content), leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: apex_create_follow handles notification setups, apex_create_topic manages topic creation, apex_generate_brief produces summaries, apex_list_topics retrieves topic lists, and apex_search performs regulatory searches. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'apex_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case, such as apex_create_follow and apex_list_topics. This uniformity enhances readability and predictability across the toolset, with no deviations in naming conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for regulatory monitoring and compliance intelligence. Each tool serves a specific function (creation, listing, searching, briefing) without redundancy, making the count appropriate and manageable for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers key operations like creating and listing topics, generating briefs, and searching publications, which supports core workflows. A minor gap exists in update or delete functionality for topics or follows, but agents can likely work around this for basic monitoring tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Ansvar: EU Regulations
eu.ansvar
EU regulations (GDPR, DORA, NIS2, AI Act, etc.) via Ansvar Gateway. Cited, OAuth + paid.
Legal & Compliance Government Data
2
NORMA MCP Server A
io.github.kynosure-ai
EU compliance corpus across 8 frameworks (NIS2, DORA, AI Act, ISO 27001 + more) via MCP.
Legal & Compliance Security
2
EuroComply — EU Regulatory Compliance A
app.eurocomply
EU regulatory compliance data: 17 regulations, deadlines, enforcement actions. EU-hosted.
Legal & Compliance Government Data
2
Obsidian Regulatory MCP
io.github.richbile
Verified, tier-0 regulatory data for AI across 850+ official sources and 50+ jurisdictions.
Legal & Compliance Government Data Open Data
2

Related MCP Servers

eu-regulations
Legal & Compliance RAG Systems Security
Ansvar-Systems
A
license
A
quality
F
maintenance
Query 37 EU regulations — from GDPR and AI Act to DORA, MiFID II, eIDAS, Medical Device Regulation, and more — directly from Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-compatible client.
Updated a month ago (2026-07-22 10:34 UTC)
14
173
25
Apache 2.0
EU AI Act Compliance MCP
Legal & Compliance Security
SonnyLabs
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Provides automated EU AI Act compliance tools, including risk classification, role determination, transparency disclosures, content watermarking, deepfake labeling, and security threat detection.
Updated 9 months ago (2025-12-17 21:40 UTC)
16
32
Apache 2.0
mcp-eur-lex
Legal & Compliance Government Data
pipeworx-io
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Enables searching and quoting EU legislation with verifiable EUR-Lex citations, including GDPR, NIS2, DORA, and the EU AI Act.
Updated 8 days ago (2026-08-26 17:05 UTC)
8
MIT
AI Compliance Calendar MCP
Legal & Compliance Research & Data
Leviai-ai
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Tracks AI regulations, deadlines, risk assessments, and policy updates across multiple global jurisdictions, helping users stay compliant with evolving AI laws.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-04-02 21:57 UTC)
17
MIT

Appeared in Searches

A search for regulations and regulatory information

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/gbesse/mcp-server'

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