Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Atviri teisės aktai – Lithuanian law

by lt.atviri-teises-aktai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_article

Read-only

The text of one article (or point) as published by the Seimas Chancellery, unchanged, with its status today (Galioja šiandien / Įsigalios D / Gali būti pasenęs / Neaišku, ar galioja / Neteko galios), until when that label is certain, amending acts, the future wording if adopted, defined terms used, a citation line and the official e-tar.lt link.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actYesAct key, abbreviation, TAR code or name: "DK", "CK", "KET", "2016-23709", "darbo kodeksas"
dateNoOptional YYYY-MM-DD: the text in force on that date (the Chancellery's official consolidation for it, since 2020, where the open data hold one); without it, today's text
findNoOptional: only the paragraphs and table rows holding these words, e.g. a substance's name or CAS number in a long annex ("formaldehidas", "50-00-0")
partNoOptional: one part of the article, by number or anchor ("107" or "d107"; a rule's sub-point "8.12" or "p8.12"): only that part's text (and its future wording) instead of the whole article
offsetNoOptional: a very long text comes in pieces of about 60,000 characters; the answer's next_offset says where the next begins
articleYesArticle or point number: "52", "21¹" or "21-1", "6.228-1", "3.2" (also accepted as `n`); an annex: "6 priedas", "V priedas" (whether an annex is in force today is not checked: its status says so)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / find
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: only the paragraphs and table rows holding these words, e.g. a substance's name or CAS number in a long annex (\"formaldehidas\", \"50-00-0\")",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: a very long text comes in pieces of about 60,000 characters; the answer's next_offset says where the next begins",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / article / description
      Previous value: -"Article or point number: \"52\", \"21¹\" or \"21-1\", \"6.228-1\", \"3.2\" (also accepted as `n`)"New value: +"Article or point number: \"52\", \"21¹\" or \"21-1\", \"6.228-1\", \"3.2\" (also accepted as `n`); an annex: \"6 priedas\", \"V priedas\" (whether an annex is in force today is not checked: its status says so)"
  3. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / act / description
      Previous value: -"Act key, abbreviation or name: \"DK\", \"CK\", \"KET\", \"darbo kodeksas\""New value: +"Act key, abbreviation, TAR code or name: \"DK\", \"CK\", \"KET\", \"2016-23709\", \"darbo kodeksas\""
    • changedInput schema / properties / article / description
      Previous value: -"Article or point number: \"52\", \"21¹\" or \"21-1\", \"6.228-1\", \"3.2\""New value: +"Article or point number: \"52\", \"21¹\" or \"21-1\", \"6.228-1\", \"3.2\" (also accepted as `n`)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / part
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: one part of the article, by number or anchor (\"107\" or \"d107\"; a rule's sub-point \"8.12\" or \"p8.12\"): only that part's text (and its future wording) instead of the whole article",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds real behavioral context: the text is unchanged as published, it enumerates the five status labels (Galioja šiandien / Įsigalios D / Gali būti pasenęs / Neaišku, ar galioja / Neteko galios), it distinguishes future wording from current text, and it warns that an annex's force status is not verified. It stops short of describing how status certainty is bounded in edge cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the core resource before listing what comes back with it. The enumeration of return components is informative but reads as a run-on list. Nothing is redundant given there is no output schema to carry it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does so in detail: status, certainty horizon, amending acts, future wording, defined terms, citation, and official link. Pagination is handled in the schema (offset, ~60,000-char pieces). Minor gap: nothing explains ordering or how the article is located when act/article are ambiguous.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including act, date, find, part, offset, and article is already documented with examples. The description adds meaning about returns (amending acts, defined terms, citation line, e-tar.lt link) rather than about parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and scope: the unchanged published text of one article or point, plus derived status and amendment data. It is unambiguous about being a single-article retrieval. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_articles or find_definition, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader infers this is the tool for pulling one article's text, and the date parameter hints at historical vs. current retrieval. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer search_law, get_articles, or find_definition instead. The annex caveat is the closest thing to a usage hint.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Atviri teisės aktai – Lithuanian law toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources