list_titlesList all 50 titles of the US Code of Federal Regulations (Title 1 General Provisions … Title 50 Wildlife and Fisheries), with currency dates. This is the index for the title filter in search_regulations. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already supply readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds 'keyless' (no params) and mentions currency dates, which provides minor additional context. No contradictions.
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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with main action, second sentence adds value. Perfectly concise.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential info (list of titles with dates, index role). It could mention exact output structure (e.g., list of title name, number, date), but the context is sufficient for basic use.
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?
No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage), so baseline is 4. Description confirms 'Keyless', adding no confusion.
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 lists all 50 CFR titles with currency dates, specifying the resource (US Code of Federal Regulations titles) and scope (all 50). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's the index for search_regulations, providing clear purpose.
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?
Explicitly mentions it's the index for the title filter in search_regulations, guiding when to use. However, it does not contrast with title_structure or provide 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is clear enough.
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.
Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates (beta is currently identical), and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence plus deep_research vs ask_pipeworx create real selection ambiguity. Some clusters like the memory trio and CFR read tools are distinct, but the overall set is confusing.
Most tools use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern (search_regulations, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim), but noun-first names (entity_profile, title_structure, ai_visibility_check) and prefix families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) break the pattern. The conventions are mixed but still readable and mostly predictable.
35 tools is heavy for any single server, and the bulk of them (Polymarket betting, memory, AI visibility, npm scanning, subscriptions) are unrelated to the server's 'Ecfr' name, which suggests a narrow regulatory focus. This is a kitchen-sink scope, making the count feel bloated rather than well-scoped.
The eCFR-specific surface is thin — list_titles, search_regulations, get_section_text, and title_structure cover basic read/search but lack version history, update tracking, or agency-level navigation. Other mini-domains (data lookup, polymarket, subscriptions, memory) are individually fairly complete, but the absence of a unified purpose leaves clear gaps overall.