RegLayer Instant Decision Briefs

Get Instant Brief PDF URL

get_instant_brief_pdf

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the authenticated PDF endpoint after status reaches ready. Use the same bearer token when downloading it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`order_id`	Yes	The order_id returned by the paid Instant Brief purchase request.
`access_token`	Yes	The private RegLayer access token returned with the order. Send it only to RegLayer and never expose it to the end user.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	Whether the private status request succeeded.
`error`	No	A machine-readable error label when the request cannot be completed.
`notice`	No	The notice that must travel with RegLayer research outputs.
`status`	No	The current order state, such as researching, ready, or failed.
`message`	No	A human-readable status, authentication, or not-ready message.
`pdf_url`	Yes	The authenticated endpoint for downloading the finished PDF.
`product`	No	The purchased Instant Brief product code.
`brief_id`	No	The Decision Brief identifier used in the finished artifact.
`order_id`	No	The private RegLayer order identifier.
`reference`	No	The customer-facing brief reference.
`api_version`	No	The version of the RegLayer agent delivery contract.
`delivery_mode`	No	The asynchronous delivery pattern used for this order.
`authentication`	Yes	The authorization header required to download the PDF.
`poll_after_seconds`	No	Seconds to wait before the next status check, or null when no further polling is needed.
`connection_required`	No	Whether the original connection must remain open.
`delivery_instructions`	No	Instructions for retrieving the result without relying on email.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds valuable context: the returned endpoint is authenticated and requires the same bearer token when downloading. This clarifies auth behavior beyond the structured data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding.

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?

For a simple tool with two well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and auth requirements. It is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description doesn't add extra semantics for order_id or access_token beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('authenticated PDF endpoint'), with a clear condition ('after status reaches ready'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_instant_brief_status or get_instant_brief_result.

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?

The description provides a clear usage context by stating the tool should be used after status reaches ready, implying a sequencing with status checks. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All RegLayer Instant Decision Briefs tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The paired get_check_* and get_instant_brief_* tools are clearly separated by product prefix, and prepare_* tools have distinct purposes. The only slight overlap is list_reglayer_products, which appears to be the broader catalog containing the Instant Brief products listed by list_instant_brief_products.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows a predictable verb_noun pattern with get_, list_, and prepare_ prefixes and product-specific suffixes. The Check and Instant Brief groups are symmetrically named, making the API surface easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well-scoped for a dual-product regulatory research server. Each tool covers a distinct step in the workflow: product discovery, request preparation, status polling, result retrieval, and PDF download.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface forms a complete workflow: list products, prepare a purchase request, poll status, then retrieve structured results and authenticated PDFs. No obvious dead ends or missing operations within the stated domain.

Resources

Need Help?