list_rule_changesRecent confirmed changes to state lawyer advertising rules only, newest first, with the date, state, rules touched and primary source of each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | Only changes on or after this day | |
| response_format | No | concise |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / detailRemoved value: -{
- "default": "summary",
- "enum": [
- "summary",
- "full"
- ],
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / response_formatAdded value: +{
+ "default": "concise",
+ "enum": [
+ "concise",
+ "detailed"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / detail / descriptionRemoved value: -"summary (default): each record as its id, a 1-2 sentence text, status, date checked, one source URL and the page to cite. full: every field, every source and the per-record provenance."Output schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "meta": {
- "description": "Credit line (attribution), citation, DOI, version, license (CC BY 4.0), disclaimer, notice and the page to cite",
- "required": [
- "attribution",
- "license",
- "disclaimer",
- "notice"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- "nextCursor": {
- "description": "Pass as `cursor` to get the next page; null on the last page",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "provenance": {
- "description": "Where this came from: the publisher of the dataset, the dataset and its version DOI, the record id, the original source (who published it and its URL), the day that source was last checked, and when this answer was retrieved",
- "properties": {
- "citeUrl": {
- "description": "The page to cite",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "dataset": {
- "description": "Dataset id",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "datasetTitle": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "dateChecked": {
- "description": "YYYY-MM-DD the record was last checked against its source",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "doi": {
- "description": "Version DOI",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "doiUrl": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "line": {
- "description": "The same facts as one sentence, to quote under an answer",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "publisher": {
- "description": "Publisher of the dataset",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "recordId": {
- "description": "Stable id of the record",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "retrievedAt": {
- "description": "ISO 8601 time this answer was served",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "source": {
- "description": "The original source: statute, rule, bar opinion, court report, agency table or platform policy",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "sourceKind": {
- "description": "primary or secondary",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "sourceUrl": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "status": {
- "description": "P primary source, S secondary, D default (no specific rule found), U open question",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "version": {
- "description": "Dataset version",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "publisher",
- "dataset",
- "version",
- "retrievedAt"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- }
-}Input schema / properties / detailAdded value: +{
+ "default": "summary",
+ "description": "summary (default): each record as its id, a 1-2 sentence text, status, date checked, one source URL and the page to cite. full: every field, every source and the per-record provenance.",
+ "enum": [
+ "summary",
+ "full"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the ordering ('newest first'), the admission filter ('confirmed' only, advertising rules only), and the per-item contents (date, state, rules touched, primary source). That is useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't say how far back the feed reaches or what 'confirmed' means procedurally.
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 that states scope, filter, ordering, and return contents with no filler. Nothing is redundant or wasted.
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 and an output schema covering the return shape, the description only needs to convey scope and ordering, which it does. The remaining gaps are minor: the default time window when 'since' is omitted, and the semantics of 'confirmed'.
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?
The description mentions no parameters at all. Schema coverage is 50%: 'since' is well documented in the schema itself, while 'response_format' has an enum but no explanation of how 'detailed' differs from 'concise'. The self-explanatory enum keeps this at a baseline-adjacent 3 rather than lower.
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?
A specific verb+resource ('list' + 'confirmed changes to state lawyer advertising rules'), with scope narrowed to recent/confirmed items and an explicit ordering (newest first). It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_rule/search_rules by being a change feed rather than a rule lookup, but never names a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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 only implied: an agent infers this is a 'what changed lately' tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus get_state_rules, search_rules, or whats_new. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
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.