com.praxikon/praxikon · v2.3.1 · productivity
Praxikon is healthy: it completed an MCP handshake in 1750 ms and exposes 9 tools.
EU AI Act and GDPR checks with sources: classify an AI system, trace each duty, find the supervisor.
Endpoint: https://www.praxikon.com/api/mcp (streamable-http)
No repository listed · Website · JSON · Add to my inventory
| Users (last 30 days) | 0 |
| Handshake | Healthy |
| Auth needed | None |
| Tool count | 9 |
| Latency | 1750 ms |
| Last checked (UTC) | 2026-10-15T23:20:16.993Z |
| Checked (UTC) | Status | Latency | Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-15T23:20:16.993Z | Healthy | 1750 | |
| 2026-10-14T21:15:46.596Z | Healthy | 3601 |
classify_system | Use this as the first step when you hold a concrete AI system and need to know which routes of the EU AI Act come into view: prohibited practice screening, Annex III high risk, transparency, FRIA and the general purpose model route, and with a version 2 profile the wider set of duties, such as Artic |
get_applicable_obligations | Use this when you need the obligations themselves for one assessed system rather than the classification picture: which obligations apply, which possibly apply, from when, why, and on which source and locator. Returns one entry per assessed obligation, filtered by applicability. A version 2 profile |
explain_applicability | Use this whenever you have to justify why an obligation does or does not bear on a case, and an outcome on its own is not enough. It returns the legal path: the conditions under which the rule is about a situation, the exceptions under which it is not despite those conditions, and the statements of |
get_source_provenance | Use this before you quote, cite or hand on anything from this graph, and whenever a reader asks on what authority a statement rests. It returns, for one object, every statement with its kind, its primary source, the locator inside that source and the review metadata, plus the source records behind t |
get_national_enforcement | Use this for the national layer: which authority is designated in a member state, how far the implementing law has come, and which dated enforcement signals are recorded, each with a primary source. The authority is recorded as free text per member state and is deliberately not a graph identifier, b |
check_case | Use this when the user describes a concrete, intended use of AI or of personal data (a system, a project, a supplier) and wants to know whether a DPIA, a FRIA or duties under the GDPR (AVG) and the EU AI Act come into play. It runs the Praxikon case check: fixed rules over fixed answers, the same ru |
export_dpia_intake | Use this when the user wants the DPIA intake of a concrete, intended use of AI or of personal data as a Word file to work on, and, where the FRIA comes into play, the FRIA draft too. It takes the same fixed fact answers as the case check of Praxikon, as coded choices, and gives the same documents as |
answer_question | Use this for a short, general question about the EU AI Act or the GDPR (AVG), such as whether a customer service chatbot has to say that it is AI or when a DPIA is required. It looks the question up in the published Praxikon answers: deterministic, no language model, and with the articles and source |
request_expert_review | Use this only when the user asks for it in their own words: they want to talk to a person, ask for a human expert, or ask how to get in touch about their situation. Never call it on your own initiative, never as a closing suggestion, and never because an answer seems uncertain. It returns a link to |