Look twice.Find the gem.

AI agents and MCP servers, each published with its source and what the checks found.

Marketplace

  • Everything
  • AI agents
  • Apps
  • MCP servers
  • Templates
  • What people want
  • What changed this week
  • The verification standard
  • The ooruby Index
  • Servers that publish no source
  • Reliability guides
  • What the catalogue holds
  • Sell here

Our library

  • Everything, in one place
  • Guides
  • Glossary
  • Calculators
  • Checklists and cheat sheets
  • Community

ooruby

  • Home
  • For teams
  • Site status
  • Company projects
  • RSS feed

Verification records what our published tests found on a specific version at a specific date. It is not a warranty, and it does not certify that software is free of defects.

Rubricv1.0
AI agentsAppsMCP serversTemplatesWantedCommunityOur library
Sign inSell
Back to the standard
rubric v1.0

Transparency self-certification

The maker's own statement about AI transparency obligations. Recorded, not assessed by us.

Applies to
agents, MCP servers, apps, templates
Standard references
none mapped

A finding here is not a failure

Software of any size carries something. A listing that raises findings on this check is still sold, with the findings published and their severity and reachability stated. A badge that only ever said pass would teach people to stop reading it.

Explainer · 2026-09-30

Transparency self-certification: why this row is recorded and not assessed

Some AI tools carry legal transparency obligations, and whether a particular one does is a legal question about how and where it is offered. This row records what the maker says and does not pretend to rule on it.

What this row records

The maker's own statement about the transparency obligations that apply to their listing. It is shown as a statement by the maker, and nothing on this site assesses whether it is correct.

Where the obligations come from

The EU's Artificial Intelligence Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, sets transparency obligations in its Article 50: broadly, that people are told when they are dealing with an AI system, and that synthetic content is marked as artificially generated. Which of them apply to a given tool depends on what it does, who deploys it and where, which is a question for the maker and their advisers rather than a scanner.

Why it is recorded rather than assessed

A certification site that ruled on legal obligations would be giving legal advice, badly. Recording the maker's statement puts it in front of the buyer, in the maker's words, where it can be held to. A catalogue listing with no maker has no statement, and the row says so.

Sources

  1. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act), EUR-Lex
  2. ooruby: what each kind of evidence can answer

What this check has found

Nothing in the catalogue has raised a finding on this check. That is a fact about what has been tested so far rather than a guarantee about what is out there, and it is printed because a check that never fires is worth knowing about too.

Other checks

No shipped credentialsDependency advisoriesBehaviour matches the manifestDeclared egressData handling disclosedLicence and provenance

Every listing in the catalogue shows its result on this check, with the findings summarised in public and the full report to whoever bought it. Open the catalogue.