list-lawsList all available German/EU digital-law statutes with article/paragraph counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| laws | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output 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"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the specific output detail of article/paragraph counts, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations and name.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential action and scope without redundancy.
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 simple, parameterless list tool, the description is adequate: it states what is returned (all statutes with counts). However, it does not mention potential ordering, pagination, or whether the list is exhaustive, though these may be covered by the output schema. Overall, it is complete enough for typical use.
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?
With zero parameters, schema coverage is trivially 100%, but the baseline is 4 because there is nothing to explain about parameters. The description adds meaning by specifying what the list contains (counts), which helps the agent understand the response scope.
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 the tool lists all available German/EU digital-law statutes with article/paragraph counts. The verb 'List' and the resource scope distinguish it from siblings like search-law (searches) and get-article (fetches a specific article).
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?
Usage is implied as a listing operation for an overview of statutes, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings (e.g., search-law or get-article). The description does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.