List the provisions that have changed most often — the least stable areas of UK law.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_most_amended"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that results are ordered by frequency of change but does not disclose the time scope, whether the full history is counted, result formatting, or pagination behavior. This is a meaningful gap for a no-annotation tool.
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, front-loaded sentence expresses both the core action and the intuitive intent ('least stable areas') with zero wasted words. The structure is clean and immediately scannable.
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?
This is a simple single-parameter list tool with no output schema, so the description covers the essential purpose. However, it omits any guidance about result ordering details, scope, or distinctions from sibling tools, leaving the tool adequate but not fully self-contained.
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?
With schema description coverage at 100%, the limit parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no further semantics to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'List provisions that have changed most often', and adds the clarifying gloss 'least stable areas of UK law'. This makes the distinct focus on amendment frequency unambiguous and clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools get_recent_amendments, get_provision_history, and search_uk_legislation.
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 use case is implied – to find unstable areas of UK law – but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_recent_amendments or get_provision_history. There are no exclusions or alternative selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.
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.