Skip to main content
Glama

get_article

Retrieve a single article when you already know the EXACT article number (e.g. from a cross-reference). Do NOT call this tool repeatedly to search for provisions — use get_law_text instead to fetch the full act or a section and locate relevant articles in the text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoConsolidation date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to the latest available version.
articleYesArticle number (e.g. '3', '28a', '41')
languageNoLanguage (default: de)
rs_numberYesRS/SR number (e.g. '210' for CC, '220' for CO, '311.0' for CP)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, but description implies read-only retrieval and emphasizes exact match, which is transparent. Does not cover error cases or output format, but sufficient for a simple tool.

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 sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with main purpose followed by usage guidance. Highly efficient.

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?

With no output schema, description could mention return format, but the tool is simple. Covers purpose and usage well, slight gap on expected output.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds minimal value beyond schema, only rephrasing article parameter example. No additional meaning for other parameters.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single article by exact article number, and distinguishes it from sibling tool get_law_text by specifying the exact use case.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells when to use (exact article number known) and when not to use (searching for provisions), and names the alternative tool get_law_text.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, non-overlapping purpose: fetching specific articles, retrieving full law text, listing consolidation dates, and searching by title. No ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern (get_article, get_law_text, list_amendments, search_by_title), making them easy to understand and remember.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of accessing Swiss federal legislation. Each tool provides essential functionality without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover finding a law by title, retrieving full text, accessing specific articles, and listing version dates. A minor gap is the lack of article content search, but descriptions guide agents to use get_law_text for that.