Skip to main content
Glama
1102tools-dev

ecfr-mcp

by 1102tools-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_version_history

Read-only

Retrieve CFR version history for sections, subparts, or parts, showing amendment dates and substantive vs editorial changes since Jan 2017.

Instructions

Get the version history of a CFR section, subpart, or part.

Returns a list of content versions with dates, amendment info, and whether each version was a substantive text change vs editorial.

The 'substantive' field is key: True = the regulatory text actually changed. False = only editorial/formatting change.

History goes back to January 2017 only. Pre-2017 changes are not tracked.

part/subpart/section accept int or string.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partNo
sectionNo
subpartNo
title_numberNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.7
    • 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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value: the January 2017 coverage limit, the semantics of the 'substantive' field, and the fact that pre-2017 changes are not tracked. These go beyond the structured data and meaningfully shape an agent's expectations.

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?

Five short sentences, each pulling weight: purpose, return shape, key-field semantics, coverage limitation, and parameter flexibility. The material facts are front-loaded and the structure is scannable, with only slight redundancy (the January 2017 point is stated twice).

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential behavioral facts: target selection, return orientation, the key field's meaning, and date-range coverage. The only notable hole is the parameter-interaction semantics described above, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that part/subpart/section accept int or string, and that the three identify the target CFR element. However, it does not explain how the parameters interact (e.g., whether they are mutually exclusive, whether a combination is allowed, or what title_number selects) — a real gap at 0% coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the version history of a CFR section, subpart, or part') and expands on what is returned (dates, amendment info, substantive-vs-editorial flag). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_cfr_content, get_cfr_structure, get_corrections, and compare_versions by its focus on historical versions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer 'use this when you need the version history of a CFR element,' but the description never names alternatives or gives when-not-to-use guidance. It does add a concrete constraint (history only back to January 2017), which helps scope expectations, but it does not route to compare_versions or find_recent_changes as alternatives.

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