Skip to main content
Glama

lt_get_act

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch Lithuanian act metadata by TAR code, including validity and issuer fields. Add an optional ISO date to check if the act was in force and which consolidated edition applied.

Instructions

Fetch Lithuanian act metadata by its TAR code, incl. validity and issuer fields.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNooptional ISO date (``YYYY-MM-DD``) - adds whether the act was in force that day and which consolidated edition applied. Default: today (validity only).
tar_kodasYese.g. ``"2014-21296"`` (from ``lt_search``).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNo
natureNopobudis: 'norminis' or 'teisės taikymo'.
numberNo
eli_uriNo
warningNo
eli_noteNoLithuania has no data.europa.eu ELI for the TAR dataset. eli_uri carries the canonical e-tar.lt legalAct URL (the stable national identifier), which is also the source_url.
validityNo
cached_atNoWhen that stored copy was fetched.
tar_kodasNo
acceded_onNo
adopted_byNo
amended_onNo
as_of_dateNo
legal_rankNoLegal force, 1 = highest (Constitution); see legal_rank_label.
source_urlNo
approved_onNo
document_idNo
is_nationalNo
prepared_byNo
ratified_onNo
dataset_noteNoThe Lithuanian Register of Legal Acts (TAR) is served as open data via the data.gov.lt Spinta API (dataset gov/lrsk/teises_aktai: models Dokumentas, Suvestine, Priedas; CC BY 4.0). Acts are addressed by their TAR code (tar_kodas, e.g. '2014-21296'); discover acts with lt_search (matches the title). Consolidated editions (suvestines redakcijos) come from the Suvestine model, attachments (priedai) from the Priedas model. Language: Lithuanian.
date_adoptedNo
is_normativeNo
document_typeNo
in_force_fromNo
registered_onNo
date_publishedNo
document_groupNo
made_public_onNo
in_force_on_dateNo
legal_rank_labelNo
alternative_titleNo
implements_eu_lawNo
not_in_force_fromNonegalioja: first day the act is no longer in force.
served_from_cacheNoTrue when data.gov.lt failed and a stored copy was served instead.
source_fetched_atNoOldest fetch time of any source response used (cache incl.).
registration_statusNo
correction_publishedNo
suvestines_id_on_dateNo
human_readable_citationNo
edition_valid_to_on_dateNo
validity_term_conditionsNo
in_force_from_conditionalNo
edition_valid_from_on_dateNo
entry_into_force_conditionsNo
not_in_force_from_conditionalNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that validity and issuer fields are included, but says nothing about the optional date parameter's effect on the response or any rate/auth considerations; with an output schema present, the remaining gap is modest.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and key selector are stated first.

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?

With rich annotations, a full output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description only needs to orient the agent, and it does. It could have noted the optional date's effect on results, but nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so both parameters (including the date/consolidated-edition semantics) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond echoing the validity concept, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (fetch) and resource (Lithuanian act metadata) keyed by TAR code, and names the returned field groups (validity, issuer). It implicitly contrasts with text/provision siblings via 'metadata' but doesn't name them, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no sibling alternatives are mentioned. The only hint of a workflow is the schema's note that tar_kodas comes from lt_search, which is not in the description itself.

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