Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

eCFR

by com.1102tools
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

find_far_definition

Read-only

Find a term's definition in FAR 2.101, the FAR's main definitions section.

Returns each matching definition whole (the defining paragraph and every
sub-paragraph under it), first, marked kind='definition'. Matching
ignores case, hyphens, spacing, plurals, a trailing "means", and the
acronym 2.101 puts in a name, so 'service-disabled veteran-owned small
business concern', 'SDVOSB concern', 'COTS', 'commercial services' and
'contract means' all find their definitions. Other 2.101 paragraphs that
use the term (whole words only) follow as kind='mention', each naming
the definition it sits in.

When 2.101 doesn't define the term, the tool searches the rest of the
FAR (chapter 1), then the DFARS (chapter 2), for "<term>" means and
returns where it is defined, with the definition text, under
defined_elsewhere (for example 19.001 and 52.219-14 for 'similarly
situated entity'; 204.7301 for 'covered defense information'), plus
did_you_mean suggestions from 2.101.

term must be at least 3 characters. max_matches caps the number of
matches returned (default 20, max 100); definitions are never cut, and
truncated says whether mentions were left out.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "term": "<term>"
    },
    "name": "find_far_definition"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNo
termYes
max_matchesNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses normalization rules (case, hyphens, spacing, plurals, trailing 'means', acronyms), the two result kinds ('definition' vs 'mention'), fallback ordering across chapters, the defined_elsewhere and did_you_mean payloads, and truncation signaling. Beyond-annotation behavior is unusually well disclosed.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and the return shape, then the fallback, then parameter constraints. The run of example terms ('SDVOSB concern', 'COTS', 'contract means') is dense but each earns its place by demonstrating the fuzzy matching. Slightly longer than necessary overall.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description still usefully explains the result kinds and truncation flag, and covers fallback scope and matching tolerance — a lot for a read-only lookup. The only missing element an agent needs before calling is what 'date' controls.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It fully specifies 'term' (min 3 chars, normalization tolerance) and 'max_matches' (default 20, max 100, never truncates definitions, sets 'truncated'), but the third parameter 'date' is never mentioned anywhere — an unexplained parameter on a definition-lookup tool is a real gap.

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 and resource with its exact location: 'Find a term's definition in FAR 2.101'. This is instantly distinguishable from siblings like search_cfr (full-text search) and get_cfr_content (section retrieval), which serve different lookup intents.

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 makes clear the tool is for definition lookups and explains the internal fallback path (2.101 → rest of chapter 1 → DFARS chapter 2), so the agent knows what scope it gets without a second call. It never names sibling tools as alternatives, so a 'use search_cfr instead when...' exclusion is absent.

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

All eCFR toolsInspect
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