Dirtsmith-built. Search the U.S. Federal Register (official API): docket ids, document type, publication/effective dates, comment deadlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | ||
| type | No | RULE|PRORULE|NOTICE | |
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| agency | No | slug, e.g. agricultural-marketing-service | |
| credit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| quota | Yes | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| results | Yes | ||
| built_by | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "built_by": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": [
+ "boolean",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "quota": {
+ "properties": {
+ "limit": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": [
+ "boolean",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "tier": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "used": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "results": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "abstract": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "agencies": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "array",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "comments_close_on": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "docket_ids": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "array",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "document_number": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "effective_on": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "html_url": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "pdf_url": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "publication_date": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "array",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok",
+ "source",
+ "total",
+ "results",
+ "built_by",
+ "quota"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world nature are covered by structured data. The description adds only '(official API)', which signals an authoritative external source but discloses nothing about pagination, rate limits, auth, or result volume - the things an agent actually needs for a search call.
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 sentence keeps it tight and the resource is front-loaded after the branding fragment. However 'Dirtsmith-built' earns nothing, and the colon-separated fragment list reads as feature-stuffing rather than structured guidance.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and one required param plus annotations cover the basics. Still, with 6 parameters at 33% schema coverage, the semantics of limit, since, and credit are missing from both the schema and the description, leaving gaps for a multi-filter search tool.
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 only 33% - type and agency are documented in the schema, while q, limit, since, and credit are bare. The description gestures at 'document type', 'publication/effective dates', and 'comment deadlines', which loosely maps to type and since, giving partial compensation, but limit and credit remain unexplained in both places.
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 (Search) and resource (U.S. Federal Register) and enumerates the returnable content (docket ids, document type, dates, comment deadlines). Siblings are almost entirely unrelated marketplace/tooling helpers, so no differentiation is needed; the only blemish is the leading 'Dirtsmith-built' branding, which is noise rather than purpose.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus any alternative, nor any prerequisites. The use case (querying the Federal Register) is only implied by the resource name. An agent gets no routing guidance at all.
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.