public-evidence_search_passagesSearch passages of one approved document in an immutable snapshot. document_id is a code from list_evidence_sources. Citation locators are source-provided, position-based h2/h3 ID fragments and are valid only within the snapshot that produced them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| document_id | Yes | ||
| 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 indicates a safe read operation, and the description's 'search' wording aligns with that. However, the description does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or other side effects, though the annotation covers the main safety aspect.
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 concise and direct, using two sentences without unnecessary fluff. It packs the core purpose and two important contextual notes efficiently.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema and seven parameters, the description is too sparse. It provides some helpful context about document_id and locators but omits parameter semantics, expected output, and any filtering or sorting behavior, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.
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 schema has zero parameter descriptions, and the tool description only explains document_id. Parameters such as as_of, limit, query, cursor, fields, and snapshot_id are left entirely undefined, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and usage.
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 searches passages within a single approved document in an immutable snapshot, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like public-evidence_get_document, though 'approved' is slightly ambiguous without further context.
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 gives some usage context, such as document_id coming from list_evidence_sources and citation locators being snapshot-specific, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings like public-evidence_get_document or public-evidence_list_evidence_sources.
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.