Find treaty processes (Staatsverträge) by a title word, partner country IRI or bilaterality: use to locate a treaty before get_treaty_info. hint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max hits (default 20, at most 50). | |
| query | No | A word of the treaty title (case-insensitive). | |
| country | No | Partner country as a Fedlex country vocabulary IRI. | |
| bilateral | No | true = bilateral only, false = multilateral only. |
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context ('Staatsverträge') and the workflow hint about get_treaty_info, but it does not disclose return shape, pagination behavior, or any search limitations. Given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not particularly rich.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and search dimensions. However, the trailing 'hint.' fragment is an unclear artifact that adds no value and slightly weakens the overall polish.
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 search tool with no output schema, the description does not explain what the returned results look like or how an agent should use them beyond naming get_treaty_info as the next step. It is sufficient for tool selection but leaves the agent without expected return structure or edge-case behavior.
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 parameters are already fully documented at the schema level. The description loosely mirrors query, country, and bilateral but adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema, and it does not mention the limit parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action ('Find'), a specific resource ('treaty processes (Staatsverträge)'), and the supported search criteria ('title word, partner country IRI or bilaterality'). It also distinguishes itself from the closely related get_treaty_info by positioning itself as the location step before that tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with search_law or search_text.
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 a clear usage context: use this tool to locate a treaty before calling get_treaty_info. This explicitly names one alternative and the workflow position, which is strong guidance. It does not mention when to prefer search_law or other search tools, so it stops short of full exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.