Skip to main content
Glama
lexbeam-software

eu-ai-act-mcp

by lexbeam-software
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Hybrid

Classify AI System Under EU AI Act

euaiact_classify_system
Read-onlyIdempotent

Classify an AI system's risk level under the EU AI Act by combining a description, use case, and structured signals to receive the risk category, applicable articles, and follow-up questions.

Instructions

Classify an AI system's risk level under the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689). Accepts a free-text description, a use_case, and/or structured signals (domain, biometric flags, synthetic content, etc.). Signals take precedence over text matching for deterministic classification. Returns risk classification, applicable Annex III category, relevant articles, provider/deployer determination, matched signals, and follow-up questions the agent should relay. Note: Art. 6(3) exceptions require documented justification and cannot be auto-applied; use euaiact_assess_art6_3_exception.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNounknown
signalsNo
use_caseNoSpecific context where the system is deployed
descriptionNoFree-text description of the AI system and its functionalities

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
basisYes
caveatYes
confidenceYes
lexbeam_urlNo
next_questionsYes
matched_signalsYes
missing_signalsYes
relevant_articlesYes
annex_iii_categoryYes
role_determinationYes
obligations_summaryYes
risk_classificationYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / signals / properties / social_scoring_unjustified_or_disproportionate
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Social scoring leads to detrimental or unfavourable treatment that is unjustified or disproportionate to the social behaviour or its gravity (Art. 5(1)(c)(ii))",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / signals / properties / social_scoring_unrelated_context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Social scoring leads to detrimental or unfavourable treatment in social contexts unrelated to the contexts in which the data was originally generated or collected (Art. 5(1)(c)(i))",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / signals / properties / biometric_publicly_accessible_space
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Real-time remote biometric identification takes place in publicly accessible spaces (Art. 5(1)(h))",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / signals / properties / biometric_remote_identification
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "System performs remote biometric identification, not merely one-to-one biometric verification",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / signals / properties / biometric_sole_purpose_verification
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Biometric use is solely to verify that a specific natural person is the person they claim to be, which is excluded from Annex III(1)(a)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / signals / properties / performs_social_scoring
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "System evaluates or classifies natural persons or groups over time based on social behaviour or personal/personality characteristics, leading to detrimental treatment (Art. 5(1)(c))",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / signals / properties / performs_social_scoring_by_public_authority / description
      Previous value: -"System is used by or on behalf of a public authority to score natural persons (Art. 5(1)(c))"New value: +"Legacy alias: public-authority social scoring. Art. 5(1)(c) is not limited to public authorities."
    • addedInput schema / properties / signals / properties / requires_third_party_conformity_assessment
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The product or AI system is required to undergo third-party conformity assessment under the applicable Annex I legislation",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observedv1.1.5

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses deterministic signal precedence, the output contents, and a hard limitation: Art. 6(3) exceptions cannot be auto-applied. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence serving a purpose: purpose, inputs, precedence, outputs, and exception handling. It avoids repeating annotation or schema details.

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?

For a complex legal classifier with many signal fields and an output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers input modes, deterministic behavior, key outputs, and a procedural limitation, while the existing output schema covers the detailed return structure.

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?

The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship and precedence between free-text/use_case inputs and structured signals. However, with only 50% schema coverage, it does not fully describe every parameter such as role, though the schema's detailed nested property descriptions partially compensate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Classify an AI system's risk level under the EU AI Act,' including the regulation number. It also enumerates concrete outputs and points to a sibling tool for Art. 6(3) exceptions, clearly differentiating its classification scope.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states acceptable input combinations (free-text, use_case, structured signals) and gives a clear precedence rule for signals over text. It explicitly names a when-not-to-use case (Art. 6(3) exceptions) and directs the agent to euaiact_assess_art6_3_exception.

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