Resolve an act's binding AS/RO publication (oc ELI, date, genre, office, memorial) from its consolidation ELI: use to cite the Amtliche Sammlung. 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 readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the safety profile; the description adds the input-to-output transformation (consolidation ELI to binding publication metadata). It does not disclose potential error cases, e.g. when no AS/RO publication exists, or the exact response shape.
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 compact single sentence that front-loads the action and output. The odd '. norm.' fragment is distracting and should be removed, but otherwise every phrase contributes required context.
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 resolver, the description covers the required input, the relationship between input and output, and the output fields, which is sufficient to invoke the tool. A richer description might note missing-publication behavior, but this is a minor gap given the 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?
Schema coverage is 100%: the single `eli` parameter is already described as a Fedlex ELI of the consolidation abstract. The description restates 'consolidation ELI' without adding format details, examples, or acceptance criteria, leaving the schema as the primary documentation.
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 ('Resolve') on a specific resource (an act's binding AS/RO publication) and names the expected output fields (oc ELI, date, genre, office, memorial), which distinguishes it from generic Fedlex getters. The trailing 'norm.' is unexplained and slightly undermines clarity, but the core purpose is 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?
'Use to cite the Amtliche Sammlung' gives a clear invocation context and tells an agent when this resolution is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but no direct sibling appears to cover the same AS/RO-binding-publication resolution purpose.
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.