Fetches the exact full text of one Turkish legislation article by legislation number and article number from an offline corpus; returns NOT_FOUND if absent, prompting a live source lookup.
Yerel korpustan tek maddenin TAM metni (çevrimdışı).
madde_no "390", "12/A", "Geçici 1" kabul eder. Korpusta yoksa NOT_FOUND döner — uydurma, canlı get_legislation çağır.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| madde_no | Yes | ||
| mevzuat_no | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the offline nature and the NOT_FOUND failure mode with an anti-hallucination warning, but says nothing about permissions, response shape, or whether the corpus can be stale.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then format examples, then failure handling. No filler; every clause earns its place.
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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what is returned (full article text), the offline source, accepted input formats, and the failure mode. The only real gap is the meaning/format of mevzuat_no.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does give concrete accepted formats for madde_no ("390", "12/A", "Geçici 1"), which is genuinely useful, but leaves mevzuat_no completely unexplained.
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 and resource: retrieving the FULL text of a single article from the local (offline) corpus. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_legislation by framing this as the offline source, so an agent can tell them apart.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to the live alternative: if the article is not in the corpus, it returns NOT_FOUND and the agent should call get_legislation instead of fabricating. This is clear fallback guidance, though it does not spell out upfront when to prefer this tool over the live one in the normal case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.