List all EU regulations tracked by EuroComply with their short name, regulation number, CELEX, status, in-force date, application date, and a one-paragraph summary. Useful when the user wants an overview or to discover what regulations exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Object with count and array of regulation summaries (slug, shortName, regulationNumber, CELEX, status, dates, summary, eurlexUrl).",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns a list with specific fields, but since an output schema exists, this is largely redundant. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, volume, or side effects) are disclosed, but none are needed given the annotation coverage. The description neither contradicts nor substantially extends the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the output fields and the intended use case. Every phrase contributes meaning without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, an existing output schema, and annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers everything. Per rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is required. The lack of parameters is itself a clear signal that the tool takes no arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('List') and resource ('all EU regulations tracked by EuroComply'), and enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like regulation_lookup (which presumably targets a specific regulation) and enforcement actions, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use case: 'Useful when the user wants an overview or to discover what regulations exist.' This implies when to use it versus alternatives, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state when not to use it. The guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.