laws_search_lawsFederal Acts and regulations whose title contains the query.
type is act or regulation (see list_law_types); since keeps laws whose consolidation date (current_to_date) or last amendment is on or after that date. Each hit links the official XML text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| as_of | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| snapshot_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no side effects, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds that each hit links to official XML, but it does not elaborate on pagination or cursor behavior.
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?
The description is two sentences, directly front-loads the core purpose, and contains no redundant or misleading content.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description only partially covers the request semantics. It omits guidance on pagination, field selection, snapshot usage, and response shape, so an agent may not know how to fully utilize the 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?
The description explains query, type, and since, but the schema has zero parameter descriptions and the other five parameters (as_of, limit, cursor, fields, snapshot_id) are not explained. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent trying to construct a correct request.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns Federal Acts and regulations matching a title query, and the tool name reinforces the search intent. It is distinguishable from related law tools like laws_get_law and laws_list_law_types.
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?
The description explains the query, type, and date-filtering semantics, and points to laws_list_law_types for valid type values. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over laws_get_law or other law-related searches, though the sibling names imply the distinction.
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.
Every tool has a unique purpose, and the descriptions are detailed enough to clearly distinguish between search, list, get, and specific operations across domains. No two tools overlap in function.
Domain tools follow a consistent '<domain>_<verb>_<noun>' pattern, but gateway-level tools like 'call_tool', 'find_capability', 'inspect_tool', 'search_services', and 'status' lack the prefix, introducing a minor inconsistency. Overall still readable and predictable.
With 35 tools, the count exceeds the typical 3–15 range, but this is a gateway aggregating multiple distinct domains (holidays, laws, opendata, recalls, etc.), making the larger set justified. The count feels appropriate for the server's purpose.
Each domain offers a full set of operations: search, list, get, and domain-specific actions (like count_business_days or get_document_changes). Gateway meta-tools cover discovery, inspection, and invocation, leaving no obvious gaps.