RegLayer Instant Decision Briefs

Prepare a RegLayer brief purchase

prepare_instant_brief_request

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate the scope and return the REST purchase shape. Payment occurs through HTTP 402 on the REST endpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`product`	Yes	The RegLayer Instant Brief product code.
`jurisdictions`	Yes	The distinct regulatory geographies the Decision Brief should cover.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	Yes	A scope correction message, or null when the request is valid.
`price`	Yes	The selected product, price, and geographic limits.
`valid`	Yes	Whether the selected product and jurisdictions form a valid purchasable scope.
`notice`	Yes	The notice that must travel with RegLayer research outputs.
`product`	Yes	The RegLayer Instant Brief product code.
`endpoint`	Yes	The REST endpoint to call to create and pay for the brief.
`after_payment`	Yes	What the agent must do after payment succeeds.
`jurisdictions`	Yes	The normalized scope supplied for validation.
`required_headers`	Yes	HTTP headers required by the purchase endpoint.
`required_body_fields`	Yes	Fields that must be present in the purchase request body.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the operation is known to be safe. The description adds context about payment occurring via HTTP 402 on the REST endpoint, which clarifies the flow without contradicting annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on validation specifics or return structure.

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?

Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about payment is placed effectively.

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 two parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description is adequate. It clearly states the action and a key behavioral aspect (payment via 402), though it could mention what validation entails or typical constraints.

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 provides full documentation for both parameters (product and jurisdictions) with descriptions, so the description doesn't need to add param details. Coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it validates scope and returns a REST purchase shape, distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch PDFs/results/status or list products. The title reinforces the purchase preparation purpose, though 'scope' could be more specific.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The description implies it's a preparatory step before a purchase, and mentions HTTP 402 on the REST endpoint, but doesn't explicitly state the usage flow or exclusions. Siblings are distinct, so usage is somewhat implied.

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?