get_federal_registerSearch Federal Register for rules, proposed rules, notices, and executive orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Document type | |
| limit | No | Max results, default 20 | |
| query | No | Search term | |
| agency | No | Agency slug (e.g., "environmental-protection-agency", "department-of-defense") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating no side effects and external data retrieval. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the types of documents searched (rules, proposed rules, notices, executive orders). It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but the annotations already address safety aspects.
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 a single concise sentence that covers the core purpose and document types. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, earning its place 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 parameter count (4) and lack of output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and the types of documents it retrieves. With annotations providing openWorldHint, the external data source is implied. A brief mention of result format would have been beneficial but is not essential given the schema's detailed parameter descriptions.
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%, with all four parameters (type, limit, query, agency) having descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely restates document types that are already captured by the enum. Per the rules, baseline is 3 for high coverage.
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 title 'Federal Register search' and description clearly state the verb 'Search' and the resource 'Federal Register', and list specific document types (rules, proposed rules, notices, executive orders). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are analytical or retrieve other specific data.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for searching Federal Register documents but provides no exclusions or context about when not to use it. However, the sibling tools are all different in nature, making the use case somewhat obvious.
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.