suggest_relatedExtract and suggest related laws, delegated authorities, and internal cross-references for a specified Japanese building code article to validate citations and prevent hallucinated legal references.
指定した条文が参照している関連法令・委任先・同法令内参照を自動抽出して提案する。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| law_name | Yes | 法令名（正式名称または略称。例: 建築基準法、建基法） | |
| article_number | Yes | 条文番号（例: 第20条、20） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that references are derived automatically rather than looked up, which is mild context; it says nothing about coverage limits, confidence, or what a suggestion contains.
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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's scope, though it is so terse that it leaves useful context unstated.
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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description should hint at the shape of the suggestions (e.g. related law names with the referencing provision). Annotations cover safety, but the agent still cannot anticipate the return payload.
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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions with format examples (正式名称または略称, 第20条/20). The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (自動抽出して提案) and a specific resource set: 関連法令・委任先・同法令内参照, scoped to a given 条文. An agent can distinguish this from get_law or search_articles, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With siblings like verify_citation and analyze_article in the same family, the description should say when suggestion of related provisions is preferable to citation verification or article analysis, but it offers nothing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.