ecfr-mcp

get_corrections

Read-only

Get editorial corrections for a CFR title, newest first.

Instructions

Get editorial corrections for a CFR title, newest first.

Returns corrections with CFR references, corrective actions, error dates, and FR citations, sorted by the date the error was corrected, newest first. Useful for checking whether a section's current text has been corrected since its last amendment.

section (e.g. '52.204-21'), part (e.g. '52') or chapter (e.g. '2' for the DFARS) keeps only corrections that touch it. since_year keeps corrections with year >= since_year. limit caps how many are returned (default 50, max 1000); truncated says whether older ones were left out. Title 48 has ~280 corrections since 2005.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`part`	No
`limit`	No
`chapter`	No
`section`	No
`since_year`	No
`title_number`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.33Oct 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / chapter

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Chapter"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / part

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Part"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / section

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Section"
+}

First observedv0.2.6May 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/safe, but the description adds valuable context: the sort order, the truncation flag, the default/max limits, and the approximate data volume ('~280 corrections since 2005'). It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only tool this is solid added context.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose and behavior, then parameters. It is slightly long but every sentence earns its place except perhaps the redundant restatement of sorting behavior.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, and it covers purpose, filtering semantics, sort order, limits, truncation, and data scale. An agent can invoke it correctly without further info.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains section/part/chapter semantics (hierarchical filtering), since_year (year >= threshold), limit (default 50, max 1000), and truncated, compensating well for the missing schema descriptions, though title_number's default of 48 is left implicit.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get editorial corrections for a CFR title') and the sorting behavior ('newest first'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_version_history or find_recent_changes.

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?

It gives clear context for use ('checking whether a section's current text has been corrected since its last amendment') but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it versus siblings like get_version_history.

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

Deploy Server