Skip to main content
Glama
Ansvar-Systems

Finnish Law MCP Server

by Ansvar-Systems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_provision

Fetch a specific provision from a Finnish statute by statute number and chapter/section, or by direct reference like '3:5'. Optionally include a date to get the provision as valid then.

Instructions

Retrieve a specific provision from a Finnish statute.

Specify the statute number and either chapter+section or provision_ref directly. Examples:

  • document_id="1050/2018", chapter="1", section="1" → 1 luku 1 §

  • document_id="1050/2018", provision_ref="1:1" → same result

  • document_id="434/2003", section="6" → 6 § (flat lookup)

Omit chapter/section/provision_ref to get all provisions in the statute.

When NOT to use: If you are searching by keyword and don't know the exact statute/provision, use search_legislation instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chapterNoChapter number (e.g., "3"). Omit for flat statutes.
sectionNoSection number (e.g., "5", "5 a")
as_of_dateNoOptional historical date (YYYY-MM-DD). Returns the provision text valid on that date.
document_idYesstatute number (e.g., "1050/2018" or "2018:218")
provision_refNoDirect provision reference (e.g., "3:5" for luku 3 § 5)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.3

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that omitting chapter/section/provision_ref returns all provisions and gives reference format examples. However, it does not mention the as_of_date historical behavior in the description text (only in the schema), does not describe the return shape, and never explicitly states that the operation is read-only. Core behavior is transparent but with gaps.

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?

The description is well-structured: purpose, parameter guidance, examples, default behavior, and when-not-to-use. The examples are valuable and not filler, and each sentence contributes. It is slightly longer than minimal, but the structure front-loads the main purpose and remains easy to scan.

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 5-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers selection logic and alternatives well. However, it does not describe what the returned provision looks like and does not mention as_of_date in the description, relying on the schema for that. An agent can call the tool confidently, but small informational gaps remain.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining parameter combinations (chapter+section OR provision_ref), providing concrete examples for each mode, and clarifying what happens when optional parameters are omitted. This materially helps an agent choose the correct inputs.

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: 'Retrieve a specific provision from a Finnish statute.' It also provides concrete examples and distinguishes itself from the sibling search_legislation by explaining that keyword searches should use that tool instead. This is clear and more than a tautology.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly specifies the parameter combinations to use (document_id with either chapter+section or provision_ref) and the default behavior when parameters are omitted. It also includes a 'When NOT to use' clause directing keyword searches to search_legislation, giving clear, actionable guidance.

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