List the Federal Gazette (BBl) documents of an act's genesis — Botschaft, reports — with genre and date: use for materials, never for law in force. 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context about what kind of documents are returned (genesis materials, with genre and date) but does not disclose details like output format, pagination, or behavior on invalid ELIs. This is acceptable given the read-only annotation, but not 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 a single sentence with the main action and resource front-loaded, followed by useful examples and usage guidance. However, the trailing '. norm.' fragment is unclear and slightly detracts from the otherwise clean structure.
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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers the core intent, the material types, the returned fields, and the critical exclusion (law in force). While there is no output schema, the description's mention of 'genre and date' partially compensates. Remaining gaps such as exact response structure are minor for this tool's simplicity.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'eli,' describing it as a Fedlex ELI of the consolidation abstract. The description reinforces that the ELI should refer to an act whose genesis documents are wanted, but it does not add further parameter-level detail beyond the schema's baseline.
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 verb ('List'), a precise resource ('Federal Gazette (BBl) documents of an act's genesis'), and even names the content types ('Botschaft, reports') and output fields ('genre and date'). It makes the tool's scope immediately distinguishable from siblings that deal with law in force or other document types.
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 for materials, never for law in force,' giving the agent a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule. This is particularly valuable given the large sibling set and the conceptual overlap between genesis documents and current legal texts.
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.