list_articlesTable of contents for an act: every Article number and its heading. Use to discover which Article to quote before calling get_article.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ISO 639-2/B language code (default "eng"). | |
| celex | Yes | CELEX id or a known alias (e.g. "DORA"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read operation. The description adds value by stating the output structure (article numbers and headings), which goes beyond the annotations' safety profile.
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, zero waste. First sentence defines purpose and output; second sentence provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, output, and usage context. No gaps given the tool's complexity.
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%; both parameters (lang, celex) are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add further semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?
The description clearly states 'Table of contents for an act: every Article number and its heading', which specifies the verb (list) and resource (articles of an act). It also distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_article' by noting its role in discovery before retrieval.
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 tells when to use: 'Use to discover which Article to quote before calling get_article.' This provides clear context and excludes the alternative, guiding correct invocation.
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 appear to do nearly the same thing: ask_pipeworx, ask_ipeworx_beta (explicitly identical at the moment), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questionanswering in a very similar way. Even with long descriptions, the sheer number of overlapping query/research/analysis tools (ai_visibility_check vs scan_comperitor_ai_presence, all polymarket_*) would make an agent uncertain which to call.
The set uses snake_case everywhere but that is the only consistent part. There is a mess of verb_noun patterns, noun_verb patterns (cjeu_search vs search_legislation, cj_judgment vs get_document), bare noun phrases (entity_profile, compliance_index, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), and verb phrases (ask_ipeworx, generate_elms_txt, resolve_entry). A user cannot predict whether the noun comes first, so naming is readable but not predictable.
39 tools is far over the 25+ threshold for a coherent set, and a large number of them (predictor markets ten, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, pipework meta-tools) are outside the EUR-Lex legal research domain. The total count suggests a bundled everything-server rather than a focused legal-research MCP. It is not extreme enough for a 1 because 39 is still within a region where a broader meta-pipework suite could plausibly exist — but it's still too many.
For the EUR-Lex domain, the legal tools are nearly complete: search_legislation + compliance_index locate acts, get_metadata/list_articles/get_article/get_document read them, and cjeu_search/cjeu_judgment cover case law. Missing links that would make it fully seamless are amendment tracking, cross-references and direct CELEX/EURL-Lex citation search integration, but all basic 'find and read an act or judgment' workflows are supported.