NOMOS

request_authority

Idempotent

Ask for an authority (a law, regulation, standard or policy) to be added to the NOMOS Exchange when find_authority finds nothing. Requests are public and ranked by how many asked; they decide what is compiled next. Repeated requests from one caller count once. This never creates an authority: only its issuer, or NOMOS compiling the public text, can.

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "request_authority"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	The authority by its usual name, e.g. "UAE Personal Data Protection Law (Federal Decree-Law 45/2021)".
`source_url`	No	Optional link to the official text.
`jurisdiction`	No	Optional jurisdiction, e.g. "AE".

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`note`	No
`title`	No
`status`	No
`counted`	No
`requests`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the real side effects: requests are public, they are ranked by demand and influence what gets compiled next, and duplicate requests from one caller are collapsed. It also bounds expectations by stating this never creates an authority and naming who can, which explains why the call is a write (readOnlyHint=false) yet idempotent (idempotentHint=true) without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and the resource definition, with no filler. The closing sentence about who can create an authority is slightly convoluted in phrasing but earns its place by preventing a false expectation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter, low-complexity tool with a full schema, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description covers trigger, effects, and limits well. The remaining gap is the sibling-level routing against ask_authority, which matters given how similar the names are.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries an example and meaning, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics for title, source_url, or jurisdiction (e.g. whether a missing jurisdiction affects ranking or matching).

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 names a specific verb and resource ("ask for an authority ... to be added to the NOMOS Exchange") and defines what an authority is, with an explicit trigger condition tied to find_authority. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling ask_authority, which an agent could easily confuse with a request-like name.

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?

The when-to-use is explicit and tied to a named sibling: after find_authority returns nothing. What is missing is the other half of the routing decision, i.e. when to use ask_authority instead, and whether a request should be retried or followed up later.

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

All NOMOS 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.

Resources

Need Help?