Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cfr-free

cfr-free

by deffenda
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Local index freshness

index_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reports the local Title 38 index's eCFR issue date, last sync time, row counts, receipt hash, and staleness against CFR_MAX_AGE_DAYS so you can verify search results are current.

Instructions

Report how current the local Title 38 index is: eCFR issue date, last sync time, row counts, the corpus receipt hash (a sha256 over the sorted per-provision (citation, text+heading) pairs at rebuild time, null on older indexes) and whether the index is stale relative to CFR_MAX_AGE_DAYS. Check this before relying on search results.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "index_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
staleYes
sectionsYes
syncedAtYes
issueDateYes
appendicesYes
corpusHashYes
maxAgeDaysYes
lastChangesYes
parserVersionYes
structureDriftYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.1
    • addedOutput schema / properties / corpusHash
      Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "issueDate",
-  "syncedAt",
-  "sections",
-  "appendices",
-  "stale",
-  "maxAgeDays",
-  "parserVersion",
-  "structureDrift",
-  "lastChanges"
-]New value: +[
+  "issueDate",
+  "syncedAt",
+  "sections",
+  "appendices",
+  "stale",
+  "maxAgeDays",
+  "parserVersion",
+  "structureDrift",
+  "corpusHash",
+  "lastChanges"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is carried. The description adds value annotations cannot: the receipt hash is a sha256 over sorted (citation, text+heading) pairs computed at rebuild time and is null on older indexes, and staleness is judged against the CFR_MAX_AGE_DAYS threshold. That is genuine behavioral context about data provenance and edge cases.

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: the first front-loads the verb and resource then enumerates the report contents, the second gives the actionable rule. The parenthetical about the receipt hash is long but every clause carries information an agent cannot get from the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations plus the description together cover safety, provenance, and staleness. The one gap is what an agent should do with a stale verdict beyond 'check this before relying' — no remediation or fallback path is described.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleadingly implies inputs that do not exist.

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?

Specific verb ('Report') plus specific resource ('the local Title 38 index') with the exact fields returned enumerated: eCFR issue date, sync time, row counts, receipt hash, staleness. That is far beyond tautology. It does not, however, draw any line against the sibling 'health' tool, which is the most likely confusion for an agent deciding between status-style tools.

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?

'Check this before relying on search results' gives a clear triggering condition tied to search_regulations. It stops short of naming alternatives or saying what to do when the report comes back stale, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not/alternatives rule set.

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