MCP-BOE

get_consolidated_law

Fetches the consolidated text and metadata for a specific Spanish legal norm by ID, including optional legal analysis and ELI metadata.

Instructions

Obtiene el texto completo y metadatos de una norma consolidada específica

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": {
      "law_id": "<law_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_consolidated_law"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`law_id`	Yes	Identificador único de la norma (ej: 'BOE-A-2015-10566')
`include_analysis`	No	Incluir análisis jurídico (materias, referencias, notas)
`include_metadata`	No	Incluir metadatos de la norma
`include_full_text`	No	Incluir texto consolidado completo (puede ser muy extenso)
`include_eli_metadata`	No	Incluir metadatos ELI (European Legislation Identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that full text is optional or that include_analysis and include_eli_metadata exist. It also fails to state that output may be very large. The description carries minimal behavioral burden.

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 that communicates the core purpose without waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return value behavior, relationship to the many sibling tools, or the conditions under which this tool should be preferred.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. All parameters are clearly described in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Obtiene') and resource ('norma consolidada específica'), indicating that the tool retrieves full text and metadata. It distinguishes from siblings like get_law_metadata (metadata only) and get_law_text_block (specific text blocks). However, the claim of 'texto completo' may overpromise since include_full_text defaults to false.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of alternatives or contextual usage, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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