get_amendment_statusCheck an Australian title's amendment status: whether it is in force, its latest compilation's contents, unincorporated commenced amendments, and amending acts.
Reports whether a title is in force, what its latest compilation incorporates, whether commenced amendments are still unincorporated, and which acts have amended it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| titleId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description further clarifies exactly what status questions the tool answers, including details about compilation and unincorporated amendments, going beyond the basic annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence and front-loaded with the verb 'Reports'. Every listed item adds value and the sentence is free of fluff, repetition, or unrelated background.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and key output dimensions for a simple one-parameter tool. However, it does not clarify the titleId input semantics or what the return structure looks like, which is a mild gap given that no output schema is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter titleId has no schema description, and the tool description does not explicitly explain titleId's value format or scope. The description's repeated use of 'title' makes the parameter's intent inferable, but the tool still relies on the parameter name for meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Reports') and names distinct outcomes: in-force status, latest compilation contents, unincorporated commenced amendments, and amending acts. This clearly identifies the tool's primary function and differentiates it from sibling tools like compare_versions or get_law_text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternative sibling tools named. The description implies that this tool is appropriate when amendment/status information is needed, but it does not specify exclusions or preferred alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.