Skip to main content
Glama
Reid-n0rc

fcc-ecfs-mcp

by Reid-n0rc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get an ECFS download plan for a filings query

ecfs_get_download_plan

Generate a date-bucketed download plan for large FCC ECFS filings searches, returning safe API calls to exhaustively page dockets and avoid duplicate or missing results.

Instructions

Get a download plan for a filings search — the same filters as ecfs_search_filings, but instead of a page of results, returns date_submission-range buckets each with a suggested_api_call safe to run to exhaustively page a large docket. Use this before ecfs_search_filings for dockets with thousands of filings (e.g. a heavily-commented NPRM): plain offset/limit paging over a large result set can return duplicate or missing filings, which the download plan's date-bucketed queries avoid.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoFree-text search across filing content (e.g. commenter name, keywords).
sortNoSort field and direction, e.g. 'date_disseminated,DESC'.
filers_nameNoFilter by the filer's name. ECFS matches the full registered name exactly (e.g. 'ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio', not 'ARRL'); if nothing matches, the search is retried as free text and the result carries a `note`.
proceedings_nameNoDocket / proceeding number to filter by, e.g. '17-108'.
date_received_sinceNoISO date (YYYY-MM-DD); only return filings received on or after this date.
date_received_untilNoISO date (YYYY-MM-DD); only return filings received on or before this date.
submissiontype_descriptionNoFilter by submission type, e.g. 'COMMENT', 'REPLY'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / filers_name / description
      Previous value: -"Filter by the filer's/commenter's name."New value: +"Filter by the filer's name. ECFS matches the full registered name exactly (e.g. 'ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio', not 'ARRL'); if nothing matches, the search is retried as free text and the result carries a `note`."
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the return shape ('date_submission-range buckets each with a suggested_api_call') and the key benefit of avoiding duplicate/missing filings. It implies a safe read operation but never explicitly states that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, which is a minor gap given zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then crisp comparative context, then the specific use case and rationale. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the returned plan structure and the reason to call it, which is the essential context. A small gap remains because it does not state whether the tool itself is read-only or describe any cost/auth constraints, but overall it is nearly complete for a planning tool.

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 schema already documents all seven filters in detail. The description adds only a general connection ('the same filters as ecfs_search_filings'), which is useful context but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('Get a download plan for a filings search') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling ecfs_search_filings by contrasting returned paginated results with date-bucketed plans. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces versus what search_filings returns.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says when to use this tool ('before ecfs_search_filings for dockets with thousands of filings') and explains why the alternative, plain offset/limit paging, is unsafe ('can return duplicate or missing filings'). The condition for selecting this tool over its sibling is stated directly.

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