eu-ai-act-mcp

Annex IV Technical Documentation Checklist

euaiact_annex_iv_checklist

Read-onlyIdempotent

Create a compliance checklist or JSON output of the EU AI Act Annex IV technical documentation items, with an optional SME-simplified mode per Article 11(1).

Instructions

The nine titles and descriptions summarise Annex IV. sub_items are non-binding implementation prompts, are not verbatim Annex IV text, and do not create additional legal requirements. Under Article 11(1), SMEs, including start-ups, and SMCs may provide the Annex IV elements in a simplified manner only by using the Commission form referred to in that paragraph.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	No	Output shape: 'json' returns structured items; 'checklist' adds a markdown checklist string.	json
`sme_simplified`	No	Indicate whether SME-simplified preparation is being used (Art. 11(1) second subparagraph).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`sme_note`	No
`total_items`	Yes
`guidance_note`	Yes
`relevant_articles`	Yes
`checklist_markdown`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.0Aug 19, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / guidance_note
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "items",
-  "total_items",
-  "relevant_articles"
-]New value: +[
+  "items",
+  "guidance_note",
+  "total_items",
+  "relevant_articles"
+]

First observedv1.1.5Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable context about the non-binding nature of sub_items and the legal simplification pathway for SMEs, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, focused paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then adds important legal context. It is concise and every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit headings or bullet points for the nine titles.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 optional params, output schema present, read-only annotations), the description covers the essential purpose, legal caveats, and simplification pathway. It doesn't detail the nine titles themselves, but that's likely the tool's output, and the output schema exists. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters (format and sme_simplified) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is sufficient, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides the nine titles and descriptions summarising Annex IV, with sub_items as non-binding implementation prompts. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on the Annex IV technical documentation checklist, which is a distinct resource from classification, deadlines, obligations, etc.

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?

The description explains the nature of the content (non-binding prompts) and clarifies the legal context regarding SMEs and SMCs under Article 11(1). It implies when to use this tool (when needing Annex IV documentation guidance) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like euaiact_get_article or euaiact_get_obligations, though the specificity of Annex IV makes the use case clear.

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

Deploy Server