regulations_search
Search open rulemakings and public dockets. Falls back to Federal Register if no API key.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search terms | |
| status | No | e.g. open, closed |
Search open rulemakings and public dockets. Falls back to Federal Register if no API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search terms | |
| status | No | e.g. open, closed |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses fallback behavior, but lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or response structure. Annotations are empty so description carries full burden.
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?
Single sentence front-loading purpose and key behavior. No unnecessary words.
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?
For a simple 2-param search tool, description covers purpose and fallback. Could elaborate on status parameter options, but overall adequate.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; baseline 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?
Description clearly states it searches open rulemakings and public dockets, with a fallback to Federal Register. The verb 'search' and specific resources distinguish it from siblings like federal_register.
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?
Indicates fallback behavior when no API key, implying use with API key for better results. However, no explicit when-not or alternatives beyond the fallback.
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.