internet-standards-mcp

Exact RFC section text

rfc_section

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve exact RFC section text by number or title, including verified errata, or find sections containing a phrase. Warns when an RFC is obsolete.

Instructions

Returns the exact text of one RFC section (by number like 15.5.5 or by title) with the verified errata that apply to it; with find, lists the sections containing a phrase; with neither, the table of contents. Warns when the RFC is obsolete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rfc`	Yes	RFC number, e.g. 9110
`find`	No	Phrase to locate
`section`	No
`subtree`	No	Include subsections

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rfc`	Yes
`obsoleted_by`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: verified errata are included, obsolete RFCs trigger a warning, and mode-dependent output is described. It does not cover edge cases like not-found behavior, but this is not a contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary return value, then mode variants and the warning. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema and read-only annotations present, the description covers all invocation modes and the obsolete-warning behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, and the description adds semantics for the undocumented section parameter (number like 15.5.5 or title) and clarifies the find parameter's role. Subtree is only described in the schema, but the description goes beyond schema for the main mode-switching params.

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 clearly states the tool returns exact RFC section text with errata, and describes distinct modes for find and table-of-contents. It is specific about the resource and verb, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_rfcs.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides clear context for when to use each mode: section lookup by number/title, find for phrase search, and neither for TOC. However, it does not mention when to prefer a sibling tool or any exclusions.

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

Deploy Server