Retrieve the legal provenance behind each answer: CELEX numbers, consolidated version, amending acts applied, corrigenda, file hashes, verification status and licence terms.
The legal acts behind every answer: CELEX numbers, consolidated version, amending acts applied, corrigenda, pending proposals, retrieval date, SHA-256 of each downloaded file, verification status, licence and attribution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It helpfully lists the exact provenance fields returned (CELEX numbers, consolidation status, SHA-256 hashes, verification status, licence), but it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any authentication requirements.
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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core concept ('The legal acts behind every answer') and then lists fields. It is concise with no filler, though the run-on list could be better structured for scanning.
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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description does a good job enumerating the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs to know. It still lacks explicit invocation context and output format details, but the low complexity keeps the gap modest.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description appropriately focuses on return content rather than input semantics, though it could clarify the output structure.
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 identifies the resource as 'the legal acts behind every answer' and enumerates the metadata fields returned, so an agent can infer it retrieves provenance data. However, it lacks a clear action verb (e.g., 'Retrieve' or 'List') and does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like commodity_codes or country_risk.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions for invocation. The phrase 'behind every answer' hints at a citation use case but does not state it explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.