eCFR

lookup_far_clause

Read-only

Convenience tool: look up the current text of a FAR, DFARS or FAR supplement section or clause.

Pass a section identifier like '15.305', '52.212-4', '2.101',
'DFARS 252.204-7012' or '552.238-81'. The chapter comes from the number
(52.x = FAR, 252.x = DFARS, 552.x = GSAR, 852.x = VAAR, 1852.x = NFS,
3052.x = HSAR), so chapter is optional. Prefixes like 'FAR', 'DFARS',
'§' and '48 CFR', en dashes, and trailing paragraph cites such as
'(d)(11)(xviii)' are handled.

Auto-resolves the latest available date. Returns parsed clean text
with heading, paragraphs and citations, plus tables, notes (such as
drafting notes, which are not clause text), examples, images and
pending_amendments when present; see get_cfr_content. A clause longer
than about 60,000 characters comes in pages: use page=2 and so on.

Common FAR sections: 2.101 (Definitions), 9.104-1 (Responsibility),
15.305 (Proposal Evaluation), 19.502-2 (Small Business Set-Asides),
52.212-4 (Commercial Terms), 52.212-5 (Required Commercial Terms).

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": {
      "section_id": "<section_id>"
    },
    "name": "lookup_far_clause"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`page`	No
`chapter`	No
`section_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, open-world safety profile, and the description adds substantial beyond-schema behavior: automatic resolution to the latest available date, stripping of prefixes/en dashes/trailing paragraph cites, pagination above ~60,000 characters, and the caveat that drafting notes are not clause text. It defers return-shape detail to get_cfr_content, which is reasonable given an output schema exists.

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 the purpose and the identifier examples, then behavior, then pagination, then examples. The trailing list of 'Common FAR sections' is somewhat expendable given an agent will supply the ID from its own task, but it is short and plausibly aids selection.

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 4-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers input formats, chapter inference, date defaulting, pagination, and notable return content (drafting notes, pending_amendments). An agent can call it correctly without further information.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: section_id formats and accepted prefixes are enumerated, chapter is explained as derivable from the number with a full mapping (52=FAR, 252=DFARS, 552=GSAR, 852=VAAR, 1852=NFS, 3052=HSAR), date auto-resolves, and page is tied to long clauses. This fully compensates for the undocumented schema.

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: retrieve the current text of a FAR/DFARS/FAR-supplement section or clause. It is clearly a convenience wrapper that resolves an identifier to text, which separates it from siblings like search_cfr, get_cfr_structure and find_far_definition.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description focuses on how to format the identifier ('Pass a section identifier like 15.305', chapter optional) rather than when to choose this tool over search_cfr or get_cfr_content. It implies usage (you already know the section number) and notes the page parameter for long clauses, but names no exclusions or explicit routing conditions.

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.