Skip to main content
Glama

Assess Art. 6(3) 'No Significant Risk' Exception

euaiact_assess_art6_3_exception
Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess whether an Annex III AI system meets the Art. 6(3) exception: narrow procedural task, improves human activity, detects patterns without replacing human review, or preparatory task; verify no profiling and documented assessment.

Instructions

Walk through the Art. 6(3) exception for Annex III high-risk AI systems. An Annex III system is NOT high-risk only if the provider affirmatively assesses no significant risk to health, safety, or fundamental rights, AND the system falls under one of the four conditions: (a) narrow procedural task, (b) improves prior human activity, (c) detects patterns without replacing human assessment, (d) preparatory task. Set no_significant_risk_to_health_safety_fundamental_rights=true only when that threshold has been assessed. CRITICAL: The exception does NOT apply if the system performs profiling of natural persons (Art. 6(3) second subparagraph). Providers invoking the exception must document the assessment (Art. 6(4)) and still register in the EU database (Art. 49(2)).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
annex_iii_numberNoAnnex III category number (1-8). Provide if known — helps the response reference the right rules.
no_significant_risk_to_health_safety_fundamental_rightsNoHas the provider affirmatively assessed that the system does not pose a significant risk of harm to health, safety, or fundamental rights, including by not materially influencing decision-making outcomes? Required for Art. 6(3).
performs_profilingYesDoes the system perform profiling of natural persons? If true, Art. 6(3) exception is UNAVAILABLE regardless of other conditions (Art. 6(3) second subparagraph).
narrow_procedural_taskNoArt. 6(3)(a): intended to perform a narrow procedural task (e.g. transform unstructured to structured data, classify documents, detect duplicates).
improves_prior_human_activityNoArt. 6(3)(b): intended to improve the result of a previously completed human activity (e.g. improve drafting style).
detects_patterns_without_replacing_human_reviewNoArt. 6(3)(c): intended to detect decision-making patterns or deviations, not replace/influence human assessment without proper review.
preparatory_taskNoArt. 6(3)(d): intended to perform a preparatory task for an assessment relevant to an Annex III use case.
documented_assessmentNoHas the provider documented the Art. 6(3) exception assessment? Required by Art. 6(4) regardless of which condition applies.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
exception_availableYes
reasoningYes
conditions_evaluatedYes
profiling_blocks_exceptionYes
documentation_reminderYes
registration_dutyYes
relevant_articlesYes
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: explains the logic of the exception, conditions, profiling exclusion, documentation requirement, and registration. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, which are consistent.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and well-structured with clear conditions and critical notes. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the complexity of the legal topic and the number of parameters, the description is complete: covers the exception logic, all conditions, profiling exclusion, documentation requirement, and registration. The output schema likely handles return values.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context for key parameters (e.g., guidance on when to set 'no_significant_risk_to_health_safety_fundamental_rights' to true), enhancing understanding.

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 assesses the Art. 6(3) exception for Annex III high-risk AI systems, distinguishing it from sibling tools that classify systems or get obligations.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use (for Annex III systems) and includes a critical exclusion (profiling blocks the exception). Does not explicitly state alternatives, but context is sufficient.

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/lexbeam-software/eu-ai-act-mcp'

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