get_regulatory_changeRetrieve one record in full, including every revision observed since it was first seen. Use this to answer whether a document was amended after publication and what moved. The id comes from a search or recent result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Record id from a search or recent result. |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral detail by stating it retrieves every revision, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
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, no extraneous words. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second provides usage guidance and input source. Efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only with annotations), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, and where the input comes from. No output schema is needed as the purpose is clear.
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 coverage is 100% with a description for the id parameter. The description adds value by explaining that the id comes from a search or recent result, providing context beyond the schema.
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 verb 'retrieve', the resource 'one record in full', and the unique aspect 'including every revision observed since it was first seen'. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like list_coverage which lists coverage, and search_regulatory_changes which is for searching.
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 explicitly says 'Use this to answer whether a document was amended after publication and what moved' and clarifies that the id comes from a search or recent result. It provides strong usage context but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool, though it's implied.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving a single full record, listing monitored regulators, listing recent publications, and searching by topic/date. No overlap exists.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_regulatory_change, list_coverage, recent_regulatory_changes, search_regulatory_changes).
With only 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for the domain of regulatory change monitoring. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function without excess.
The tool set covers core operations: retrieving full records with history, listing coverage, viewing recent changes, and searching. Minor gap: search lacks an explicit regulator filter, but coverage list provides context.