Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EMC Regulations MCP Server

EMC Regulations MCP Server

by RFingAdam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

ecfr_query

Retrieve specific CFR sections for EMC regulations, such as FCC Part 15 emission limits, by specifying title, part, and section.

Instructions

Query the eCFR API for specific CFR sections.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "part": "<part>"
    },
    "name": "ecfr_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesCFR title (47 for FCC)
partYesCFR part (15, 18, etc.)
sectionNoSection number (e.g., '15.209')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Query the eCFR API' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as rate limits, data size, or side effects. The agent has no insight into operational constraints.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded for clarity (e.g., expanding 'eCFR').

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, error handling, or typical usage scenarios, which a simple query tool would benefit from.

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 has 100% description coverage for parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but baseline is 3 as schema already provides enough detail.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: querying the eCFR API for specific CFR sections. It uses a specific verb 'Query' and resource 'eCFR API' with 'specific CFR sections', distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific standards or limits.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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