get_standards_packFetch one standards pack by id, including the full per-provision V/E/S mapping. Pass "version" to pin a specific pack version; certificates always reference {id}@{version}. CC BY 4.0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Pack id, e.g. "eu-ai-act". | |
| version | No | Optional pack version. Defaults to the most recent. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the V/E/S mapping, version pinning semantics, certificate references, and the CC BY 4.0 license. While it could mention return format or error handling, it goes beyond what annotations provide.
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. First sentence states action and scope; second explains version pinning and its real-world implication. No filler or repetition of schema details.
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 single-pack fetch with two parameters, the description adequately covers the key output (V/E/S mapping) and the version-pinning behavior. It lacks explicit error/not-found handling but is otherwise complete given the tool's simplicity. The license note adds unexpected but useful context.
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 is 100% with basic descriptions for both parameters. The description adds semantic value by explaining the relationship between id and version (certificates reference {id}@{version}) and that version is for pinning, which is not present in the schema itself.
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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one standards pack'), with the unique qualifier 'by id' and the distinguished content 'full per-provision V/E/S mapping'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling 'list_standards_packs' which would return multiple packs.
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?
Clear context: says to pass 'version' to pin a specific pack version and explains that certificates always reference {id}@{version}, which implies when version matters. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the id-based fetch and version pinning give enough usage guidance for the intended use case.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: fetching items vs. distributions, listing vs. fetching specific entities, and distinct submission endpoints for benchmark, eval, and RFC comments. Even the two 'get items' tools (bench vs. eval) are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and use cases.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores. Verbs are grouped by action type (get_, list_, submit_, start_, register_, verify_, search_), and the patterns are predictable and uniform across the set.
At 17 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct purpose. The breadth of the domain (papers, RFCs, standards packs, benchmarks, evaluation, certification, vocabulary, search) justifies the count, and no tool feels redundant.
The tool surface covers the major workflows: listing and fetching resources, starting and submitting evaluation attempts, registering and verifying certifications, and submitting benchmark/RFC responses. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to cancel an evaluation attempt or list a specific benchmark run by id, but these are edge cases and the core lifecycle is well-covered.