List the AS/BBl issue (memorial) an oc publication appeared in and the acts of that issue: use after get_oc_act to locate the volume. norm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eli | Yes | The AS publication ELI (https://fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/oc/…), from get_oc_act. | |
| limit | No | Max acts of the issue (default 20, at most 50). |
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 read-only hint already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the tool lists the memorial issue and its acts, but it does not disclose output shape, ordering, or any behavior beyond the schema.
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 concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. The trailing 'norm.' is unexplained and slightly distracting, preventing a perfect score.
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 read-only lookup tool with one required parameter and a simple optional limit, the description conveys the purpose, the input origin, and the broad output. Without an output schema, a bit more return-format detail would be ideal, but the core information is present.
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%, including the eli provenance and the limit range/default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states.
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') and a specific resource: the AS/BBl issue (memorial) an OC publication appeared in, plus the acts of that issue. It also distinguishes itself from get_oc_act by explicitly positioning it as the follow-up step.
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 instruction 'use after get_oc_act to locate the volume' gives clear sequential usage context. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 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.