ecfs_get_filingFetch a single FCC ECFS filing by submission ID to retrieve its details. Use it when you need specific filing data from the Electronic Comment Filing System.
Fetch a single ECFS filing by its submission ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_submission | Yes | The ECFS submission ID of the filing to fetch. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm no side effects, nor does it mention permissions, error behavior, or return characteristics.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The action and resource are immediately clear.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain what the returned filing contains or how errors like a missing submission ID are handled.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input parameter is already documented as the ECFS submission ID. The description's phrase 'by its submission ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (ECFS filing), and scope (single, by submission ID). This implicitly distinguishes it from ecfs_search_filings, though no sibling is named directly.
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?
Gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ecfs_search_filings or ecfs_download_document. The 'by ID' phrasing implies usage but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.