eu-ai-act-mcp

Get EU AI Act Article Summary

euaiact_get_article

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an operational summary of a specific article of the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689), plus a stable EUR-Lex URL to the canonical text. Supports a subset of the most-cited articles (Art.

Instructions

Retrieve an operational summary of a specific article of the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689), plus a stable EUR-Lex URL to the canonical text. Supports a subset of the most-cited articles (Art. 3, 4, 4a, 5, 6, 9-17, 26, 27, 40, 43, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 72, 73, 99, 100, 113); Art. 40 and the summaries of Art. 17 and 43 carry the status of harmonised standards. For articles outside this subset the tool returns the EUR-Lex base URL. The summary is not statutory text: follow the URL and verify the official provision before quoting it.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`article`	Yes	Article number (e.g. '5', '4a', 'Art. 99', 'Article 4', 'Artikel 4'). Case-insensitive; prefix optional. Returns the whole article summary, not an individual paragraph.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`article`	Yes
`available`	Yes
`eurlex_url`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.0Oct 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / article / description

Previous value: -"Article number (e.g. '5', '6', '50', 'Art. 99'). Case-insensitive; 'Art.' prefix optional."New value: +"Article number (e.g. '5', '4a', 'Art. 99', 'Article 4', 'Artikel 4'). Case-insensitive; prefix optional. Returns the whole article summary, not an individual paragraph."

First observedv1.1.5Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the supported-article subset, the degraded fallback behavior for unsupported articles, the harmonised-standards status of Art. 40/17/43, and the explicit warning that the summary is not statutory text.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope and caveats. The long parenthetical article list is dense but necessary and earns its place; overall it is slightly verbose but well structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described. The description covers the scope limits, fallback behavior, and verification caveat, giving the agent everything needed to call and trust the result.

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% and the schema already documents accepted formats ('5', '4a', 'Art. 99'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating which article values are actually resolvable, which the schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (operational summary of a specific EU AI Act article) plus the canonical URL. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like euaiact_get_obligations or euaiact_answer_question, which serve different retrieval intents.

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?

Gives clear context: it enumerates the supported article subset and states the fallback (EUR-Lex base URL) for articles outside it, plus a caveat to verify the official text before quoting. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as answer_question, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

Deploy Server