Get the Article 3 definition of a term used in the EU AI Act.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | The defined term, e.g. "provider", "high-risk AI system" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| permalink | Yes | ||
| reference | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "permalink": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reference": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "term": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "term",
+ "text",
+ "permalink"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is specifically the Article 3 definition, but it does not disclose matching behavior (exact vs. fuzzy) or what happens when a term is not defined in Article 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted text. The scope and action are immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has a fully documented single parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations. The only meaningful gap is that term-matching and not-found behavior are not described, which could matter for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the term parameter already includes examples such as "provider" and "high-risk AI system". The description adds only the domain constraint that the term is used in the EU AI Act, without extra syntax or matching details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("Article 3 definition of a term") and scopes it to the EU AI Act. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_article, get_recital, or search_text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: use this when you need the legal definition of a term. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_article or search_text, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.