Skip to main content
Glama
1102tools-dev

ecfr-mcp

by 1102tools-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_cfr_content

Read-only

Retrieve eCFR regulatory text (sections, subparts, parts, appendices) for compliance research. Returns parsed clean text or raw XML.

Instructions

Get the full text of a CFR section, subpart, part, or appendix.

This is the primary workhorse for reading regulatory text. Returns parsed clean text by default (heading, paragraphs, citations, plus tables and editorial_notes when present). Set raw_xml=True to get the original XML instead.

Specify the narrowest scope possible to keep responses manageable:

  • section='15.305' for a single FAR section

  • subpart='15.3' for a subpart

  • part='15' for an entire part (can be large)

  • chapter='1' for an entire chapter (often >1 MB, avoid)

  • appendix='Appendix A to Chapter 2' (with chapter='2') for a DFARS appendix

Date auto-resolves to the latest available if not provided. Do NOT use today's date directly -- eCFR lags 1-2 business days and today often 404s.

Title 48 = FAR/DFARS. Chapter 1 = FAR (Parts 1-99), Chapter 2 = DFARS (Parts 200-299). Other chapters = agency FAR supplements (GSAR, VAAR, HSAR, etc.).

For DFARS clauses, use chapter='2' (e.g., section='252.227-7014').

part/subpart/section accept int or string. Common prefix mistakes like section='FAR 15.305' or '48 CFR 15.305' are stripped automatically, and trailing paragraph cites like section='15.305(a)(2)' resolve to the base section '15.305'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNo
partNo
chapterNo
raw_xmlNo
sectionNo
subpartNo
appendixNo
title_numberNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.0.7
    • addedInput schema / properties / appendix
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Appendix"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / chapter / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / part / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / section / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / subpart / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv0.2.6

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: default clean parsed text with headings/paragraphs/citations/tables/editorial notes, raw_xml behavior, date auto-resolution and lag warnings, automatic prefix stripping, and resolution of trailing paragraph cites. This goes far beyond what annotations convey.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but every sentence earns its place, covering behavior, scoping, date caveats, title/chapter mapping, and input normalization. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and return format, then layers practical usage guidance.

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?

For a high-complexity tool with 8 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is remarkably complete: it explains output contents, scoping strategies, date behavior, title/chapter semantics, DFARS clause usage, and parameter type flexibility. Because an output schema exists, return-value detail need not be repeated.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: every parameter (date, part, chapter, raw_xml, section, subpart, appendix, title_number) receives meaningful explanation, with concrete examples and type/coercion notes. It even covers edge cases like 'FAR 15.305' prefix stripping and '15.305(a)(2)' resolving to the base section.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full text of a CFR section, subpart, part, or appendix.' It further differentiates itself as the 'primary workhorse for reading regulatory text,' which sets it apart from sibling search, structure, and listing tools. The scope is unmistakable.

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?

Provides clear contextual guidance: use the narrowest scope to keep responses manageable, avoid chapter-level pulls, set raw_xml only when needed, and avoid today's date due to eCFR lag. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use search_cfr instead when...', so it stops short of a full when-not/alternatives treatment.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools