eCFR

find_recent_changes

Read-only

Find CFR sections changed since a given date, removals included.

Built on eCFR's version history: every version issued on or after
since_date, newest first. Each change says whether the section was
amended, removed (change='removed'), or re-issued with no text change
(substantive=false). 'summary' counts each kind. A section changed
twice appears twice.

since_date must be in YYYY-MM-DD format. Filter with title (default 48),
chapter (Title 48: 1 = FAR, 2 = DFARS, 99 = CAS) or part. per_page
(default 100, max 5000) and page step through long lists; total_pages
says how many pages there are.

Common pattern: find FAR changes since a specific date to check for
regulatory updates that might affect ongoing acquisitions.

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": {
      "since_date": "<since_date>"
    },
    "name": "find_recent_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`part`	No
`title`	No
`chapter`	No
`per_page`	No
`since_date`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains important behavior: removals are included, results are newest first, duplicate changes appear twice, and each change carries amended/removed/substantive semantics. It also explains how summary counts and pagination behave, which materially helps an agent interpret results.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layered with semantics, parameters, and a common usage pattern. Each paragraph earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

Given six parameters, zero schema descriptions, and an available output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers filters, date format, pagination, and result semantics without needing to restate the output schema.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and does so well: since_date format is specified, title default and chapter mappings are explained, part filtering is noted, and per_page/page/total_pages behavior is described. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: find CFR sections changed since a given date, with removals explicitly included. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_version_history or compare_versions.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: checking FAR changes since a specific date for regulatory updates affecting acquisitions. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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

All eCFR 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.