Reecopedia

Search EU textile regulations

search_eu_textile_regulations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search regulatory evidence in English legal register. Cite original document and unit; verify each claim. Optional scope narrows corpus partitions. Each question part has a model assessment and validated quotations. Query embeddings use Alibaba; candidate passages are sent to Jina and query plus selected passages to Anthropic.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`scope`	No
`top_k`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 17, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / query / description

Removed value: -"English, in the legal register of the act. A non-English query is accepted but retrieves poorly, and the result then carries a `notice` saying so.\nAct identifiers stay verbatim (\"ESPR\", \"2024/1781\"): they are\nmatched as metadata. Article and annex numbers are matched in\ntheir English form: \"第9条\" and \"Artikel 9\" do not match,\n\"Article 9\" does.\nMeasured 2026-08-27 on the live index, one question three ways:\n\"must a marketplace show the product passport before purchase,\nwhere is it written?\" returned NOTHING; \"marketplace must make the\ndigital product passport accessible before purchase\" returned the\nCWA guidance (0.96) with the ESPR at 0.001; \"make the digital\nproduct passport accessible to customers before they are bound by a\ncontract of sale\" returned the ESPR itself first (0.94, p.21)."

addedInput schema / properties / scope

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

changedInput schema / properties / top_k / default
```
Previous value: -10New value: +20
```

removedInput schema / properties / top_k / description

Removed value: -"Number of passages to return (1-10, default 10)."

Changed1 schema field changedSep 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / query / description

Previous value: -"ENGLISH ONLY, in the legal register of the act. A non-English `query` violates this tool's contract and its passages must be discarded, not answered from.\nAct identifiers stay verbatim (\"ESPR\", \"2024/1781\"): they are\nmatched as metadata. Article and annex numbers must be rewritten\ninto their English form, because that is how they are matched:\n\"第9条\" and \"Artikel 9\" do not match, \"Article 9\" does.\nMeasured 2026-08-27 on the live index, one question three ways:\n\"must a marketplace show the product passport before purchase,\nwhere is it written?\" returned NOTHING; \"marketplace must make the\ndigital product passport accessible before purchase\" returned the\nCWA guidance (0.96) with the ESPR at 0.001; \"make the digital\nproduct passport accessible to customers before they are bound by a\ncontract of sale\" returned the ESPR itself first (0.94, p.21)."New value: +"English, in the legal register of the act. A non-English query is accepted but retrieves poorly, and the result then carries a `notice` saying so.\nAct identifiers stay verbatim (\"ESPR\", \"2024/1781\"): they are\nmatched as metadata. Article and annex numbers are matched in\ntheir English form: \"第9条\" and \"Artikel 9\" do not match,\n\"Article 9\" does.\nMeasured 2026-08-27 on the live index, one question three ways:\n\"must a marketplace show the product passport before purchase,\nwhere is it written?\" returned NOTHING; \"marketplace must make the\ndigital product passport accessible before purchase\" returned the\nCWA guidance (0.96) with the ESPR at 0.001; \"make the digital\nproduct passport accessible to customers before they are bound by a\ncontract of sale\" returned the ESPR itself first (0.94, p.21)."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 27, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / query / description

Previous value: -"The regulatory question — SEND IT IN ENGLISH even if the user\nasked in another language, whatever that language is (the corpus is\nEnglish; a non-English query can miss the official text entirely),\nthen answer the user in their own language. Do NOT translate\nword-for-word: phrase it in the LEGAL REGISTER of the act, because\nretrieval matches the wording of the law, not the phrasing of the\nquestion. Measured 2026-08-27 on the live index, same question three\nways: \"must a marketplace show the product passport before purchase,\nwhere is it written?\" returned NOTHING; \"marketplace must make the\ndigital product passport accessible before purchase\" returned the\nCWA guidance (0.96) with the ESPR at 0.001; \"make the digital\nproduct passport accessible to customers before they are bound by a\ncontract of sale\" returned the ESPR itself first (0.94, p.21). Keep\narticle/annex numbers and act identifiers verbatim (\"Article 9\",\n\"ESPR\", \"2024/1781\"): those are matched as metadata, not translated."New value: +"ENGLISH ONLY, in the legal register of the act. A non-English `query` violates this tool's contract and its passages must be discarded, not answered from.\nAct identifiers stay verbatim (\"ESPR\", \"2024/1781\"): they are\nmatched as metadata. Article and annex numbers must be rewritten\ninto their English form, because that is how they are matched:\n\"第9条\" and \"Artikel 9\" do not match, \"Article 9\" does.\nMeasured 2026-08-27 on the live index, one question three ways:\n\"must a marketplace show the product passport before purchase,\nwhere is it written?\" returned NOTHING; \"marketplace must make the\ndigital product passport accessible before purchase\" returned the\nCWA guidance (0.96) with the ESPR at 0.001; \"make the digital\nproduct passport accessible to customers before they are bound by a\ncontract of sale\" returned the ESPR itself first (0.94, p.21)."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 27, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / query / description

Previous value: -"The regulatory question — SEND IT IN ENGLISH even if the user\nasked in another language (the corpus is English; a non-English\nquery can miss the official text entirely), then answer the user in\ntheir own language. Keep article/annex numbers and act identifiers\nverbatim (\"Article 9\", \"ESPR\", \"2024/1781\"): those are matched as\nmetadata, not translated."New value: +"The regulatory question — SEND IT IN ENGLISH even if the user\nasked in another language, whatever that language is (the corpus is\nEnglish; a non-English query can miss the official text entirely),\nthen answer the user in their own language. Do NOT translate\nword-for-word: phrase it in the LEGAL REGISTER of the act, because\nretrieval matches the wording of the law, not the phrasing of the\nquestion. Measured 2026-08-27 on the live index, same question three\nways: \"must a marketplace show the product passport before purchase,\nwhere is it written?\" returned NOTHING; \"marketplace must make the\ndigital product passport accessible before purchase\" returned the\nCWA guidance (0.96) with the ESPR at 0.001; \"make the digital\nproduct passport accessible to customers before they are bound by a\ncontract of sale\" returned the ESPR itself first (0.94, p.21). Keep\narticle/annex numbers and act identifiers verbatim (\"Article 9\",\n\"ESPR\", \"2024/1781\"): those are matched as metadata, not translated."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 27, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / query / description

Previous value: -"The regulatory question, in any language (English works best)."New value: +"The regulatory question — SEND IT IN ENGLISH even if the user\nasked in another language (the corpus is English; a non-English\nquery can miss the official text entirely), then answer the user in\ntheir own language. Keep article/annex numbers and act identifiers\nverbatim (\"Article 9\", \"ESPR\", \"2024/1781\"): those are matched as\nmetadata, not translated."

Changed2 schema fields changedJul 16, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / top_k / default
```
Previous value: -6New value: +10
```

changedInput schema / properties / top_k / description

Previous value: -"Number of passages to return (1-10, default 6)."New value: +"Number of passages to return (1-10, default 10)."

First observedJul 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it promises citations to the original document and unit, per-part model assessments, validated quotations, and even discloses the model pipeline. This meaningfully shapes agent expectations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence adds useful information about scope, output verification, or internal behavior. It is compact enough for an agent to parse quickly, though the model-pipeline sentence is somewhat detail-heavy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description, combined with the output schema and annotations, covers the search domain, verification behavior, scope option, and evidence structure. It is missing guidance on how top_k affects retrieval or assessment, and it does not clarify when to prefer this tool over the sibling 'search'. Solid but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains that 'scope' is optional and 'narrows corpus partitions', and it implies the query can contain multiple question parts. However, it does not explain what kind of query text is expected or what 'top_k' controls, leaving a partial gap.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Search regulatory evidence in English legal register.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic browsing or fetching, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling 'search' tool or mention corpus boundaries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies a legal-research use case, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of 'search', 'fetch', or 'find_exact_text'. It also does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when results might be insufficient.

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

All Reecopedia 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?