eu-ai-act-mcp

Get Obligations by Role and Risk Level

euaiact_get_obligations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns EU AI Act compliance obligations for providers or deployers based on AI system risk level, filtering by role and risk to identify required actions.

Instructions

Returns specific compliance obligations for providers or deployers based on AI system risk level.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	Yes	Provider or deployer role
`risk_level`	Yes	AI system risk level. Use 'gpai' for general-purpose AI model obligations (Art. 51-56).
`filter_keyword`	No	Optional keyword filter for obligations
`annex_iii_point`	No	If high_risk_source is annex_iii, the Annex III point number. Point 2 has special Art. 49/27 treatment.
`high_risk_source`	No	For high-risk systems, whether classification comes from Annex III/Art. 6(2), Annex I/Art. 6(1), or is unknown	unknown
`gpai_model_placed_on_market_before_2025_08_02`	No	For GPAI providers, whether the model was placed on the market before 2 August 2025, triggering the Art. 111(3) transition to 2 August 2027.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	Yes
`penalties`	Yes
`risk_level`	Yes
`obligations`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.0Oct 2, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / lexbeam_url
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.3.0Jun 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / annex_iii_point

Added value: +{
+  "description": "If high_risk_source is annex_iii, the Annex III point number. Point 2 has special Art. 49/27 treatment.",
+  "maximum": 8,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / gpai_model_placed_on_market_before_2025_08_02

Added value: +{
+  "description": "For GPAI providers, whether the model was placed on the market before 2 August 2025, triggering the Art. 111(3) transition to 2 August 2027.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / high_risk_source

Added value: +{
+  "default": "unknown",
+  "description": "For high-risk systems, whether classification comes from Annex III/Art. 6(2), Annex I/Art. 6(1), or is unknown",
+  "enum": [
+    "annex_iii",
+    "annex_i",
+    "unknown"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv1.1.5Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — it doesn't mention that GPAI/transitional logic or Annex III special cases are handled, though those nuances live in the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a domain tool with 6 parameters and non-trivial legal branching.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so return values and parameter formats need not be explained. The description is adequate for calling the tool correctly, leaving only the when-to-use routing gap.

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%, including enum meanings and the Annex III point / GPAI transition semantics, so the schema carries the full burden. The description names only role and risk level and adds no meaning beyond what the schema documents.

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?

States a specific verb (Returns) and resource (compliance obligations) with scoping dimensions (providers/deployers, risk level). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like euaiact_assess_system or euaiact_classify_system.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the nine sibling tools — notably assess_system, classify_system, or answer_question, which could plausibly overlap. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

Deploy Server