ph-compliance-mcp

Get a statute provision

get_provision

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the exact text of a Philippine legal provision and its current status to verify whether it has been amended, repealed, or superseded.

Instructions

Return the exact text of a provision (e.g. Civil Code Art. 1156) with its current status. Version-aware: reports amended/repealed/superseded status when the corpus tracks it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`statute`	Yes	Statute short title, e.g. 'Civil Code of the Philippines'
`provision`	Yes	Provision number, e.g. '1156' or 'Art. 1156'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`citation`	Yes
`provisionNo`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.12.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: the tool is version-aware and reports amended/repealed/superseded status when the corpus tracks it, including a caveat about corpus coverage.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?

Two focused sentences with the core action first and the version-aware qualification second. There is no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given only two required parameters, a complete output schema, and annotations covering safety semantics, the description provides everything needed to invoke and interpret the result. The corpus-tracking caveat is an honest boundary condition.

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% and both parameters are already explained in the input schema. The description's example illustrates how the parameters combine but does not add materially new meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Return the exact text of a provision') and gives a concrete example. It is clear about returning current status, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like show_amendments or show_history.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion of alternatives. The wording implies the tool is for retrieving exact provision text and status, but it does not tell an agent to prefer show_amendments or show_history for historical views.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.