Read a treaty process profile (title, signature, bilateral, partner countries, approving decree) for an eli/treaty IRI: use after find_treaties. norm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eli | Yes | The treaty process IRI (https://fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/treaty/…), from find_treaties. | |
| lang | No | Preferred title language (de|fr|it|en|rm); default de. |
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 signals a safe read operation, and the description aligns by saying 'Read.' It adds useful context by naming the profile components returned, such as title, signature, bilateral status, partner countries, and approving decree. It does not detail response formatting, but the annotation lowers the disclosure burden.
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 compact sentence with the core purpose and usage context front-loaded. The trailing 'norm.' token appears to be a leftover fragment and adds no value, preventing a perfect structural 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 simple read operation with one required parameter, full schema coverage, and readOnlyHint, the description provides enough context: expected input, usage sequence, and the content of the profile. While there is no output schema, the listed fields cover most of what an agent needs to anticipate. A more explicit statement of response shape would be nice but is not critical here.
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 both parameters are already documented there. The description mostly reinforces the eli source guidance already present in the schema and does not add anything about lang. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters but adds limited value beyond the structured fields.
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 names a precise operation ('Read') and resource ('treaty process profile'), and it enumerates the profile fields. It is clearly distinguished from search-oriented siblings like find_treaties, and the meaning is not obscured by the stray 'norm.' suffix.
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 instructs agents to call this tool after find_treaties, establishing both the data source and the expected input, an eli/treaty IRI. It does not list exclusions or alternative getters, but the sequencing guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.