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 qualifies for the Art. 6(3) exception from high-risk classification by evaluating four conditions and profiling status.

Instructions

Walk through the Art. 6(3) exception for Annex III high-risk AI systems. An Annex III system is NOT high-risk if it does not pose a significant risk to health, safety, or fundamental rights, AND 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. 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.
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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which aligns with the assessment nature. The description adds behavioral context such as the need for documentation (Art. 6(4)) and registration (Art. 49(2)), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise, with the purpose stated upfront. The second sentence is somewhat lengthy but packs necessary legal details. Could be slightly more compact, but overall efficient.

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 7 parameters, complete schema coverage, output schema, and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the legal framework, conditions, and post-assessment obligations. No major gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds legal context (e.g., narrowing conditions from the article), which supplements the schema. However, it largely recaps schema comments.

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 walks through the Art. 6(3) exception for Annex III high-risk AI systems. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a specific legal exemption assessment, which is unique among the sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool: to assess if an Annex III system qualifies for the 'no significant risk' exception. It lists conditions and the critical profiling exclusion, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state 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.

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