Skip to main content
Glama

DSGVO.pro — German Digital-Law Compliance

by pro.dsgvo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List Available Laws

list-laws
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all available German/EU digital-law statutes with article/paragraph counts.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lawsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / laws / items / properties / coverage / description
      Previous value: -"\"partial\" means the corpus holds website-relevant excerpts only, not the full statute"New value: +"\"full\": all paragraphs/articles of the statute — annexes (Anlagen/Anhänge) are not included. \"partial\": website-relevant excerpts only, not the full statute."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / laws / items / properties / coverage
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "\"partial\" means the corpus holds website-relevant excerpts only, not the full statute",
+  "enum": [
+    "full",
+    "partial"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "laws": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "articleCount": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "fullName": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Identifier to pass to search-law / get-article",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Short name, e.g. \"BDSG\"",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "unit": {
+            "description": "\"Artikel\" or \"Paragraf\"",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and mutability profile is fully covered. The description adds that returned laws are annotated with article/paragraph counts, a modest behavioral detail beyond the structured fields, but says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence that states the scope and the returned detail with no filler. Nothing to trim and nothing important buried.

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, the description need not explain return values, and annotations carry the behavioral contract, so the one-sentence scope statement is nearly sufficient. Only the lack of routing guidance against the four sibling tools keeps it short of complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies; the description correctly implies no filtering is offered.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a precisely scoped resource ('all available German/EU digital-law statutes'), plus the useful detail that results carry article/paragraph counts. It is clearly distinct from get-article and search-law in intent, though it never names a sibling to reinforce that contrast.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use phrasing and no alternatives are named. The catalog-discovery role is only implied by 'all available', leaving the agent to infer that this should be called before search-law or get-article rather than being told.

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

All DSGVO.pro — German Digital-Law Compliance 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