eCFR

list_sections_in_part

Read-only

List all sections and appendices in a CFR part with their headings.

Returns 'sections' in order, each {identifier, heading}, with
type='appendix' on appendices (2 CFR 200's Appendix I-XII, for example)
and reserved=true on reserved sections, plus 'subparts' (each with its
heading, section_count and first and last section). Useful for seeing
the scope of a part before reading specific sections.

The part number alone is enough: chapter is optional (Title 48 parts
are unique: 52 = FAR, 252 = DFARS, 552 = GSAR) and the answer reports
the chapter the part is in. subpart (e.g. '52.2') lists one subpart.
A list too long to send at once (FAR Part 52 has 680 entries) comes in
pages: page and total_pages say where you are; page=2 gets the rest.
detail=True adds eCFR's label, size and received_on for each entry
(received_on is when eCFR processed the text, not when it was amended;
get_version_history has amendment dates).

part_number accepts int or string.

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": {
      "part_number": "<part_number>"
    },
    "name": "list_sections_in_part"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`page`	No
`detail`	No
`chapter`	No
`subpart`	No
`part_number`	Yes
`title_number`	No

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?

Annotations only cover readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, yet the description discloses the pagination model ('A list too long to send at once ... comes in pages: page and total_pages'), the practical scale limit (FAR Part 52 has 680 entries), and a subtle caveat that received_on is text-processing time rather than amendment date, redirecting to get_version_history. That is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then parameter guidance, with no filler sentences. The `detail=True` sentence is long but each clause (label, size, received_on caveat) adds distinct information, so waste is minimal.

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?

For a 7-parameter list tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers what the response contains, how paging works, how to narrow scope, and where to look for related date data. The only omission is the `date` parameter, which is minor given the otherwise thorough coverage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description carries the burden and does so for most parameters: part_number alone suffices, chapter is optional with concrete title-48 examples, subpart filters to one subpart (e.g. '52.2'), page/total_pages explain paging, and detail=True is spelled out field by field. However the `date` parameter is never mentioned and `title_number`'s default of 48 is only implied, leaving gaps.

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 ('List all sections and appendices in a CFR part with their headings') and immediately clarifies what the response contains (sections, appendices, subparts). This clearly separates it from get_cfr_content (reading a section), get_cfr_structure (structure) and search_cfr (searching).

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?

'Useful for seeing the scope of a part before reading specific sections' gives a clear situational trigger and implicitly routes the agent to a read-a-section tool afterwards. It does not name the alternative tool explicitly or state exclusions, so it falls short of full when/when-not 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.