Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-red-web-utils

mcp-red-web-utils

by hsharmanov02
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

legislation_search

Search UK legislation on legislation.gov.uk by keyword to find statutes, regulations, and amendments for legal research. Paid per call in USDC on Base.

Instructions

Search UK legislation (legislation.gov.uk) (paid per call, USDC on Base via x402)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "legislation_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose a genuinely important trait: the call is paid per invocation in USDC on Base via x402. That is real behavioral value. However, it omits how payment is authorized, whether failures are still charged, rate limits, and the result format, leaving significant gaps for a paid operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the resource and the payment model are stated up front. It is efficient, though the parenthetical payment tag reads as a footnote rather than fully integrated context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a paid, unannotated search tool with no output schema, the description should say what comes back (titles, citations, text snippets?) and how the x402 payment handshake works. Neither is covered, so an agent knows what the tool does but not how to successfully complete a call.

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 0% for the single parameter 'q', so the description must compensate. It implies 'q' is a search query by virtue of 'Search', but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or example, leaving format ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search UK legislation') plus the data source (legislation.gov.uk), which distinguishes it from siblings like caselaw_search and edgar_search. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it lands just below the top mark.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to choose this over caselaw_search or the other legal-data siblings, and no prerequisites are stated beyond the payment note. The agent must infer that 'legislation' means UK statutes/statutory instruments as opposed to case law.

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