Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
estonian-data-protection-mcp

estonian-data-protection-mcp

by Ansvar-Systems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

ee_dp_get_decision

Retrieve a specific AKI decision from the Estonian Data Protection Inspectorate using its reference number.

Instructions

Get a specific AKI decision by reference number.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "reference": "<reference>"
    },
    "name": "ee_dp_get_decision"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
referenceYesAKI decision reference (e.g., 'AKI-2022-001')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only 'get' action, but does not mention return format, error handling (e.g., invalid reference), or any other behavioral nuances. It's minimally adequate for a simple getter but lacks enrichment.

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 a single, concise sentence (10 words) that gets straight to the point. There is no fluff, and the key information (action, resource, identifier) is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has only one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. Given its low complexity, the description sufficiently covers the core purpose and invocation. It doesn't describe the return value explicitly, but 'get a decision' reasonably implies the decision object is returned.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'reference' parameter, including an example. The tool description's phrase 'by reference number' adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema lists, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action (Get), a resource (AKI decision), and the identifying method (by reference number). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ee_dp_search_decisions and ee_dp_get_guideline, which operate on different resources or use different access patterns.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a specific reference number and need a single decision. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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