Get all sections between a start and end number (inclusive) with full text. If start and end are provided in reverse order, it silently corrects them and includes a note in the response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| act_code | Yes | e.g. 'BNS', 'COI'. | |
| end_section | Yes | e.g. '110', '19'. | |
| start_section | Yes | e.g. '100', '12'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / act_code / descriptionPrevious value: -"e.g. 'BNS'."New value: +"e.g. 'BNS', 'COI'."Input schema / properties / end_section / descriptionPrevious value: -"e.g. '110'."New value: +"e.g. '110', '19'."Input schema / properties / start_section / descriptionPrevious value: -"e.g. '100'."New value: +"e.g. '100', '12'."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one non-obvious trait — reversed start/end are silently corrected and a note is added to the response — but says nothing about result size, what happens for nonexistent sections, or error behavior on an invalid act_code.
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?
Two sentences, purpose front-loaded ahead of the edge-case behavior, with no filler or restatement of the title. Every clause adds information.
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?
Adequate for a simple read tool with 100% parameter coverage, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should cover return shape (does it include section numbers/titles?), pagination or size limits, and how missing sections are handled. Those gaps keep it at minimum viable.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by specifying that the range is inclusive and that reversed inputs are tolerated, which the schema's bare 'e.g.' parameter descriptions do not convey.
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 and resource ('Get all sections between a start and end number') plus scope qualifiers ('inclusive', 'with full text'). This cleanly separates it from sibling get_section (single section) and list_sections (likely IDs only), though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to choose this over get_section, list_sections, or get_full_act. Usage is only implied by the name and the 'range' semantics; an agent must infer that this is the bulk-retrieval option and that act_code must already be resolved.
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.