Skip to main content
Glama

check_ai_act

Read-only

Classify a product's risk under the EU AI Act and get compliance obligations with deadlines.

Instructions

Classify a product's risk level under the EU AI Act — minimal, limited, high or prohibited — and return the applicable obligations, each with its compliance deadline (limited-risk transparency duties apply from Aug 2, 2026; Annex III high risk from Dec 2, 2027). The boolean parameters fall into three groups, all optional and defaulting to the safest 'not applicable' value: (1) transparency triggers — usesAI, interactsWithPeople, generatesContent, automatedDecisions; (2) the eight prohibited practices of art. 5 — socialScoring, realtimeBiometricPublic + realtimeBiometricLawEnforcement, emotionRecognitionWorkEducation, biometricCategorisationSensitive, untargetedFaceScraping, manipulativeOrExploitative, individualPredictivePolicing; (3) high-risk triggers — embeddedInRegulatedProduct, annexIII domains. Answer from what you know about the product (scan_project's suggestedAnswers.usesGenerativeAI maps to usesAI + generatesContent); leave unknowns at their defaults, which never over-report risk. Returns {level, headline, explanation, obligations: [{title, description, deadline}]}. Read-only, no signup; requires network access to the LexVibe API (errors return {error} with isError). Use it when the user asks whether the EU AI Act applies to them or after adding an AI feature; make_compliant already includes a basic version of this check.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usesAINoDoes the product use AI at all (LLM calls, recommendations, computer vision…)? false ⇒ minimal risk, the AI Act does not apply.
annexIIINoAnnex III high-risk domains the system operates in: biometrics, critical (infrastructure), education, employment (HR/hiring), essential (credit, insurance, benefits), law (enforcement), migration, justice. Empty if none apply.
socialScoringNoDoes it score people's social behavior or traits causing detrimental treatment in unrelated contexts, or disproportionate to the behavior (art. 5.1.c)? Prohibited. A seller rating or fitness points app is NOT this.
generatesContentNoDoes it generate text, images, audio or video shown to users? Triggers the art. 50 duty to label AI-generated content.
automatedDecisionsNoDoes it make automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects on people (credit, hiring, admissions…)? Adds GDPR art. 22 duties; high risk only if an Annex III domain applies.
interactsWithPeopleNoDo people interact directly with the AI (chatbot, voice assistant…)? Triggers the art. 50 duty to disclose they are talking to an AI.
untargetedFaceScrapingNoDoes it untargetedly scrape facial images from the internet or CCTV footage to build or expand a face-recognition database (art. 5.1.e)? Prohibited. Matching a user's own consented selfie against their own ID photo is NOT this.
realtimeBiometricPublicNoReal-time remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces (e.g. live face recognition)? High risk (Annex III biometrics) — prohibited only when combined with realtimeBiometricLawEnforcement.
embeddedInRegulatedProductNoIs the AI a safety component embedded in an Annex I regulated product (toys, machinery, medical devices…)? High risk via art. 6.1, deadline Aug 2, 2028.
manipulativeOrExploitativeNoDoes it use subliminal techniques beyond a person's consciousness, or exploit a known vulnerability (age, disability, specific social or economic situation) to materially distort behavior and cause harm — e.g. dark patterns targeting a diagnosed gambling addiction (art. 5.1.a-b)? Prohibited. Ordinary persuasive marketing or UX nudges aimed at the general population are NOT this.
individualPredictivePolicingNoPredicting an individual's criminal risk based solely on profiling or personality traits (art. 5.1.d)? Prohibited.
emotionRecognitionWorkEducationNoDoes it infer emotions (frustration, attention, mood…) from employees at work or students in education, e.g. to flag disengaged staff or bored students (art. 5.1.f)? Prohibited. Emotion inference on end users of a public consumer product (not their employees/students) is NOT this.
realtimeBiometricLawEnforcementNoOnly if realtimeBiometricPublic: is it used for LAW ENFORCEMENT purposes? That combination is prohibited (art. 5.1.h) and already in force.
biometricCategorisationSensitiveNoDoes it use biometric data (face, voice, gait…) to infer sensitive attributes — race, political opinion, religion, trade-union membership, sexual orientation (art. 5.1.g)? Prohibited. Ordinary face-unlock or liveness checks that don't infer these attributes are NOT this.
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: read-only, no signup required, requires network access to LexVibe API, error returns {error} with isError. It also explains parameter defaults default to the safest 'not applicable' value, which aligns with destructiveHint=false. No contradictions with annotations.

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 lengthy but well-structured: starts with core purpose, then parameter grouping, return format, and usage notes. It front-loads the main action and avoids redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, though brevity could be improved.

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 the complexity of 14 boolean parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure ({level, headline, explanation, obligations}) and each parameter's impact. It also covers error handling and network requirements, making the tool usable without additional context.

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%, so parameter descriptions exist. The tool description adds value by grouping parameters into three categories (transparency triggers, prohibited practices, high-risk triggers) and mapping to scan_project's outputs (e.g., usesGenerativeAI maps to usesAI and generatesContent). This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 explicitly states the tool classifies a product's risk level under the EU AI Act, returning risk levels (minimal, limited, high, prohibited) and obligations with deadlines. It also differentiates from siblings like scan_project and make_compliant, noting mapping of scan_project's outputs to parameters and that make_compliant includes a basic version of this check.

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?

The description provides clear usage guidance: use when the user asks whether the EU AI Act applies to them or after adding an AI feature. It also explains when not to use (leave unknowns at defaults) and mentions an alternative (make_compliant already includes a basic version of this check).

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/marcosnovo/lexvibe-mcp'

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