List the legislative drafts (Entwürfe, eli/proj) an act came from, with the Curia Vista number: use as the entry to consultations and materials. norm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eli | Yes | Fedlex ELI of the consolidation abstract. |
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 description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, and it adds useful context: the tool traces an act back to its originating drafts and surfaces the Curia Vista number. It does not disclose return shape, pagination, or error behavior, but for a read-only single-ELI lookup the annotations already cover the safety profile.
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 main sentence is short and front-loaded with the key action. However, the orphaned 'norm.' at the end is an unexplained fragment that does not earn its place and makes the description feel structurally incomplete.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: what it lists, the input concept, and its intended role as a starting point for consultations and materials. It could be more explicit about the response format, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major gap.
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% and the only parameter, eli, is already described as 'Fedlex ELI of the consolidation abstract.' The description adds only a small hint that drafts use 'eli/proj' identifiers, but it does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics 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 states a specific action and resource: it lists the legislative drafts (Entwürfe, eli/proj) that an act originated from, and includes the Curia Vista number as a visible output feature. This clearly distinguishes it from the many other fedlex retrieval tools focused on consultations, references, or versions. The trailing 'norm.' is noise, but the core purpose remains unambiguous.
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 to use this tool 'as the entry to consultations and materials,' which gives clear contextual guidance on when it is valuable. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the full 5.
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.
The tools are strongly namespaced and most have a clear 'use for' hint, so an agent can usually select correctly. A few near-neighbour pairs, such as fedlex.get_citations vs fedlex.get_references and facts.badge vs facts.latest, require careful reading but are still distinguishable.
The <domain>.<snake_case_action> style is consistent and the fedlex/lindas families are predictable. However, several noun-style names such as meta.tools, lindas.observations, and facts.badge deviate from the verb_noun pattern, and the variety of get_/read_/list_/find_ verbs adds minor noise.
With 52 tools, this is a very large MCP surface for one server; while each tool appears individually purposeful, the combined set is heavy for an agent to explore and select from. The gateway would be more manageable split into separate legal, data, and meta servers.
The Fedlex cluster covers the full legal-research workflow: search, version resolution, reading, comparison, citation checking, history tracing, consultations, and official publications. The LINDAS cluster covers cube discovery, schema inspection, filtering, and label resolution, and the directory/meta tools complete the capability-discovery loop. There are no obvious dead ends or critical missing operations.