Lexiara

A provision's version history

provision_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Prior and successor versions of one provision across consolidations — how the text got to its current form.

Lexiara Nexus data requires an API key on a signed-in account. The free plan carries a monthly Nexus allowance; the legislative text itself is always free.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "work": "<work>",
      "eId": "<eId>"
    },
    "name": "provision_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`eId`	Yes	Provision identifier: 'sec_4' (section 4), 'art_2__para_1' (article 2(1)), 'sch_9' (Schedule 9). Use search or history endpoints to discover eIds.
`work`	Yes	ELI URI of the instrument, e.g. 'http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/1994/23' (UK VAT Act 1994) or 'http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2006/112/oj' (EU VAT Directive).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 10, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "The JSON response from the corresponding Lexiara API route.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: an API key on a signed-in account is required and a monthly allowance applies on the free plan, which is quota/permission information not present in the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in one tight sentence, with no redundancy. The account/allowance sentence is slightly boilerplate and arguably account-level rather than tool-level, but it is behavioral information and reasonably brief.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces: what the tool returns conceptually (version lineage) and the auth/quota constraint. Return-value detail is legitimately delegated to the output schema.

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 both eId and work are already fully documented in the schema with format examples and discovery hints. The description adds no parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific resource and retrieval scope: prior and successor versions of one provision across consolidations. An agent can distinguish this from lookup_provision or provision_context by the 'across consolidations / version history' framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'how the text got to its current form' implies the use case (historical/version questions), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as provision_context or lookup_provision for point-in-time retrieval.

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

All Lexiara tools Inspect

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

Need Help?