Skip to main content
Glama
Reid-n0rc

fcc-ecfs-mcp

by Reid-n0rc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Search ECFS filings

ecfs_search_filings

Search and filter FCC ECFS filings by proceeding/docket, filer, submission type, and date to find relevant public comments.

Instructions

Search filings submitted to the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Filter by proceeding/docket number, filer name, submission type, and date received.

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'.
limitNoMax results to return (API max is 100). Defaults to 25.
offsetNoPagination offset. Defaults to 0.
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. Changed3 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`."
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, result ordering defaults, pagination behavior, or the free-text fallback for filer names. The only behavioral detail in the tool (the retry-as-free-text behavior and the resulting `note`) lives in the schema, not the description.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the resource scope front-loaded before the filter list. Efficient, though the second sentence is essentially a restatement of the schema property names.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 9-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what a result looks like, whether pagination metadata is returned, and any auth context. The schema covers parameter detail well, but the description leaves the agent to infer the rest.

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 restates the filter categories (docket, filer, submission type, date) that the schema already documents in more depth, adding no format or syntax detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search filings submitted to the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System') and names the filterable dimensions. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ecfs_search_documents or ecfs_search_proceedings, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the resource is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description enumerates usable filters, which implies when the tool is appropriate, but it never says when to prefer it over ecfs_search_documents or ecfs_search_proceedings, nor does it state prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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