Full-text search over articles, recitals and annexes of the EU AI Act. Returns ranked matches with snippets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (default 5, hard cap 25) | |
| query | Yes | ||
| scope | No | Defaults to all |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| scope | No | ||
| results | Yes | ||
| total_matches | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Max results to return (default 5, hard cap 25)",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "query": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "results": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "permalink": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "snippet": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "label",
+ "snippet",
+ "permalink"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "scope": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "total_matches": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "query",
+ "total_matches",
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are ranked and include snippets, but says nothing about ranking behavior, snippet length or empty-result handling.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the searchable corpus named first and the return shape second. Nothing redundant.
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?
With annotations covering safety, an output schema covering returns, and the description naming the corpus, an agent has nearly everything needed. Only query syntax and choice among sibling retrieval tools remain unspecified.
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 coverage is 67% — limit and scope are documented in the schema, while the required 'query' has no description in either place. The description adds no detail on query syntax (keywords, phrases, boolean operators), so it does not compensate for the gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: full-text search over the EU AI Act's articles, recitals and annexes. The scope makes it distinguishable from sibling retrieval tools like get_article and get_recital, though those siblings are not named.
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?
The term 'full-text search' implies keyword lookup rather than exact-article retrieval, but the description never says when to prefer this over get_article/get_recital or assess_compliance. Usage is only inferable from the resource description.
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.