Ortexo

compare_eu_article

Read-onlyIdempotent

WHAT CHANGED in an EU article between two dates — the delta, not both full texts. The EU twin of compare_article. Use it to check whether a provision a judgment relied on has since been rewritten, or what a reform actually altered. Says plainly when NOTHING changed, which is the answer to 'has this been amended since', and reports honestly when no consolidated version covers one of the dates rather than comparing against a text that did not exist.

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": {
      "celex": "<celex>",
      "article": "<article>",
      "date1": "<date1>",
      "date2": "<date2>"
    },
    "name": "compare_eu_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`celex`	Yes	CELEX, e.g. 32006L0112.
`date1`	Yes	First date, YYYY-MM-DD.
`date2`	Yes	Second date, YYYY-MM-DD.
`article`	Yes	Article number, as a string: "98".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuine edge-case behavior: it reports plainly when nothing changed and honestly declines to compare when no consolidated version covers a date rather than fabricating a baseline. That is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs and cannot get from 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 the core 'WHAT CHANGED / delta not full texts' statement, followed by use cases and edge-case transparency. Slight rhetorical flourish ('Says plainly', 'reports honestly') but every sentence carries useful information.

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?

With four required, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it explains the response is a delta, includes a 'nothing changed' signal, and discloses the missing-consolidated-version case. Nothing essential to calling or interpreting it is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter already carries a description (CELEX, article as string, YYYY-MM-DD dates), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no per-parameter format or ordering guidance beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: 'WHAT CHANGED in an EU article between two dates — the delta, not both full texts.' It explicitly distinguishes the delta output from a full-text comparison and identifies itself as the EU counterpart of compare_article, so an agent can separate it from sibling lookup tools.

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?

Gives concrete use cases — checking whether a provision a judgment relied on was rewritten, and what a reform altered — and implicitly excludes full-text comparison. It does not explicitly name lookup_eu_article_at_date as the single-date alternative, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives specification.

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

All Ortexo 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?