search_legislationRanked full-text search over provision text. Results carry work, eId, status and provenance — feed a hit's work+eId to lookup_provision for the complete payload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum hits, default 10. | |
| query | Yes | Search terms, e.g. 'zero-rating of food'. | |
| language | No | Restrict to a text language, e.g. 'eng'. | |
| jurisdiction | No | ISO country filter, e.g. 'UK', 'FR', 'EU'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds behavioral context beyond those annotations: ranked results, scope over provision text, and the specific fields returned. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 sentences, both dense with relevant information: the first defines scope and ranking, the second defines the output contract and next step. There is no filler or repetition of annotation data.
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?
With no output schema, the description supplies the crucial return contract (work, eId, status, provenance) and the follow-up action. Combined with fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking this tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add query syntax or filtering nuances, but the schema already documents each parameter with examples, so the agent has sufficient guidance.
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?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Ranked full-text search over provision text.' It also specifies what results carry, which differentiates it from related tools like lookup_provision and provisions_by_concept without ambiguity.
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?
The description gives explicit downstream guidance: feed a hit's work+eId to lookup_provision for the complete payload. This establishes when to use this tool as the entry point for full-text discovery, though it does not enumerate exclusions for all sibling tools.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions carefully separate overlapping areas such as definition lookup, cross-references, and transposition links. A few citation/graph tools (related_works, work_mentions, find_national_implementations, provision_context) could be confused at a glance, but their granularity and direction are explicitly differentiated.
Naming follows a readable all-lowercase-snake_case style, but conventions are mixed: roughly half are imperative verb_object names (lookup_provision, search_legislation, list_topics) while the rest are bare noun-phrase view names (provision_context, recent_changes, work_mentions). The pattern is understandable but not uniform.
At 18 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool maps to a distinct research query or data product. The count is justified by the breadth of legal-research operations rather than redundancy.
The surface covers the domain thoroughly: search, provision lookup, definitions, multilingual terms, cross-references, amendment history, transposition links, topics, coverage, updates, and review workflows. The explicit read-only design means absent write operations are a deliberate boundary, not a gap.