Skip to main content
Glama

Lexiara

by org.lexiara
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Graded developments in the law you follow

follow_updates
Read-onlyIdempotent

The digest: every change the corpus observed on followed law, each with a SIGNIFICANCE grade and the reasoning behind it — 'major' (a new consolidation whose version point advanced, a provision appearing, a provision now repealed), 'minor' (wording changed, or the stored text moved while the publisher's version point did not), 'housekeeping' (first ingest, bulk churn from a version substitution). The grade is LEXIARA'S ASSERTION, not the publisher's: treat 'major' as a prompt to read the instrument, never as a finding about it, and cite the instrument rather than the digest. reach says how a development arrived — 'direct', or 'via-transposition' when it is on the other side of a transposition edge from what was followed, in which case the link itself is unreviewed evidence like any other relationship in Lexiara Nexus.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum developments, default 100.
sinceNoISO timestamp. Omit to use each follow's own last read.
minSignificanceNoFloor for this call: major | minor | housekeeping.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "The JSON response from the corresponding Lexiara API route.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), while the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the grade is Lexiara's own assertion rather than the publisher's, it warns against treating 'major' as a finding, and it discloses that 'via-transposition' links are unreviewed evidence. That epistemic framing is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot supply.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is front-loaded and every sentence carries content, but the single dense paragraph is heavy for a three-parameter, all-optional list tool, and the grade taxonomy is delivered in nested parentheticals that are harder to scan than a short list would be.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, yet the description still clarifies the two most interpretive output fields, significance grade and reach. It omits anything about pagination or default ordering, which keeps it short of fully complete.

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 limit, since, and minSignificance are already documented in the schema; the description only restates the grade vocabulary for minSignificance. It does, however, add output-side semantics for 'reach', which is not an input parameter. 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 opening line ('The digest: every change the corpus observed on followed law') names the resource and scope precisely, and the 'followed law' framing separates it from corpus-wide siblings like recent_changes or search. It is clear but never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 tool is for law you follow, and grades are described as 'a prompt to read the instrument'. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to recent_changes, list_follows, or provision_history, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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

All Lexiara 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