get_lawFetch a Japanese law/ordinance by its e-Gov law id (from search_laws), e.g. "415AC0000000057". Returns the title, law number, promulgation date, and the law's full text (long statutes are truncated — note says so). Source: e-Gov 法令検索.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| law_id | Yes | e-Gov law id, e.g. "415AC0000000057". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "law_id": "415AC0000000057"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses truncation of long statutes beyond annotations. Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavior and source.
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 concise sentences covering all essential points: action, parameter, source, return fields, truncation caveat. No wasted 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?
Given single parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, description fully explains what tool does, what it returns, and truncation. Complete for its simplicity.
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 coverage 100% provides format description. Tool description adds example and context that ID originates from search_laws, adding value beyond schema.
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?
Specific verb 'Fetch' with clear resource 'Japanese law/ordinance' by 'e-Gov law id'. Distinguishes from sibling 'search_laws' by specifying fetching by ID rather than searching.
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 'from search_laws' indicating prerequisite step. Provides example ID. Could more explicitly state when not to use, but context with sibling tool is clear.
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.