Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

UK Legislation Changes

by io.github.busybusybussiness
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_provision_history

Get the full point-in-time amendment history for one provision: every version boundary date and what changed at each.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_provision_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesProvision id, e.g. 'ukpga/1996/18/section/94'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it tells the agent the getter returns complete point-in-time history, including version boundaries and per-change details. It doesn't state read-only explicitly or mention failure modes, but 'Get' plus the returned contents makes the behavior clear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope. The result content follows immediately. No filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool, the description plus schema is almost complete: it states exactly what history is returned unique to one provision. It doesn't mention ordering or boundaries, but those are not likely critical for invoking correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%; the schema already describes the provision id with an example. The phrase 'for one provision' reinforces id's role but adds no new syntax or semantics. Baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieving the full point-in-time amendment history for one provision. The phrase 'for one provision' clearly distinguishes it from siblings that search or return recent/most-amended provisions.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly scopes the tool to a single provision, providing clear context for when it is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it doesn't reach the 5-level.

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

All UK Legislation Changes toolsInspect
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