ecfr-mcp

find_far_definition

Read-only

Find a term's definition in FAR 2.101, the FAR's main definitions section.

Instructions

Find a term's definition in FAR 2.101, the FAR's main definitions section.

Returns each matching definition whole (the defining paragraph and every sub-paragraph under it), first, marked kind='definition'. Matching ignores case, hyphens, spacing, plurals, a trailing "means", and the acronym 2.101 puts in a name, so 'service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern', 'SDVOSB concern', 'COTS', 'commercial services' and 'contract means' all find their definitions. Other 2.101 paragraphs that use the term (whole words only) follow as kind='mention', each naming the definition it sits in.

When 2.101 doesn't define the term, the tool searches the rest of the FAR (chapter 1), then the DFARS (chapter 2), for "" means and returns where it is defined, with the definition text, under defined_elsewhere (for example 19.001 and 52.219-14 for 'similarly situated entity'; 204.7301 for 'covered defense information'), plus did_you_mean suggestions from 2.101.

term must be at least 3 characters. max_matches caps the number of matches returned (default 20, max 100); definitions are never cut, and truncated says whether mentions were left out.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`term`	Yes
`max_matches`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.6May 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark it read-only, non-destructive, and open-world, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: normalization rules (case, hyphens, spacing, plurals, trailing 'means'), the two result kinds, the fallback chain with did_you_mean, and the truncation flag. This is far more than the structured fields convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the purpose and then the matching and fallback behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the matching-rules sentence is long and a little list-heavy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Even though an output schema exists, the description defines the meaningful return shape (kind='definition' vs 'mention', defined_elsewhere, did_you_mean, truncated) and the fallback semantics an agent needs to interpret results. Complete for this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it defines term's 3-character minimum and max_matches' default (20) and cap (100), plus the interaction between max_matches and truncation. The third parameter, date, is never mentioned, leaving one gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (find) plus resource (a term's definition in FAR 2.101) and scopes it to the FAR's main definitions section. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lookup_far_clause or search_cfr, which serve different retrieval needs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context for use, including the fallback path when 2.101 lacks the term (chapter 1 then chapter 2), and shows example inputs. It does not explicitly compare itself to a sibling search tool, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server