Vetari

Search SHAB gazette publications by date, mutation type, canton or company

search_publications

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search SHAB gazette publications by date (published or journal), mutation type (see list_mutation_types), sub-rubric, canton, the named company's legal form, and/or a list of company UIDs. Unknown closed-set values are rejected, so an empty page is a real zero. Newest first; the order is fixed. Rows say what happened, to whom and when, without the gazette text — read that via get_publications. title is the entry's own headline, and subRubric separates entries from changes and deletions, which is what is left when mutationTypes is UNRESOLVED. Every other company attribute is a question for search_companies. No free-text search over publication bodies.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`size`	No	Page size, max 100 (default 20)
`cursor`	No	nextCursor from the previous page; omit to start at the beginning. Opaque — pass it back verbatim, and keep the same filters or it is rejected.
`cantons`	No	Two-letter canton codes, e.g. ["ZH","BE"]; anything else is rejected
`journalTo`	No	Entered in the journal on/before this ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`legalForms`	No	Legal forms of the company named, by abbreviation or full name in any official language, e.g. ["AG","GmbH"] or ["SA","Sàrl"]; an unknown one is rejected. Catalog: vetari://allowed-values/legalForm
`subRubrics`	No	Sub-rubrics of the commercial-register rubric: HR01 new entries, HR02 changes, HR03 deletions
`companyUids`	No	Restrict to these companies by UID, formatted or plain; at most 25
`journalFrom`	No	Entered in the journal on/after this ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) — the register's own date, days before publication
`publishedTo`	No	Published on/before this ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`mutationTypes`	No	Mutation types matched with OR semantics, e.g. ["NEW_REGISTRATION","DISSOLUTION_BANKRUPTCY"]; valid values via list_mutation_types
`publishedFrom`	No	Published on/after this ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`disclaimer`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context: closed-set values are strictly rejected so an empty result is a genuine zero, and results are fixed newest-first with no ordering control. These are traits not derivable from the annotations, though return-format and pagination behavior are only lightly touched.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The paragraph is dense but front-loaded with the search dimensions, followed by rejection/ordering behavior and sibling routing. Every sentence carries information, though the run-on enumeration of filters and caveats makes it heavier than a strictly optimal structure.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, and the description still covers filter semantics, closed-set validation behavior, result ordering, and the sibling boundary cases. For an 11-parameter but zero-required search tool, this is complete enough to call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema does not: subRubric distinguishes entries/changes/deletions and is what remains when mutationTypes is UNRESOLVED, and title is the entry's own headline. This clarifies the relationship between filters rather than merely restating them.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (SHAB gazette publications) and enumerates the filter dimensions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by routing gazette text to get_publications and company attributes to search_companies, so an agent can tell them apart without opening a schema.

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?

Names concrete alternatives and the conditions that select them: list_mutation_types for valid mutation values, get_publications for the gazette body text, search_companies for other company attributes. It also states a negative boundary ('No free-text search over publication bodies'), leaving little to infer.

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

All Vetari tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?