TAAP MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

lt_get_attachment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a single Lithuanian legal act attachment by act code and attachment ID, returning extracted text, metadata, and a download URL.

Instructions

Fetch one attachment (priedas) of an act: extracted text, metadata and download URL.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`priedo_id`	Yes	from ``lt_list_attachments``.
`tar_kodas`	Yes	the act the attachment belongs to, e.g. ``"2014-21296"``.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`title`	No
`format`	No		text/plain
`content`	No
`eli_uri`	No
`updated`	No
`warning`	No
`eli_note`	No		Lithuania 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.
`byte_size`	No
`cached_at`	No	When that stored copy was fetched.
`priedo_id`	No
`tar_kodas`	No
`source_url`	No
`file_format`	No
`dataset_note`	No		The 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.
`download_url`	No
`retrieved_at`	No
`content_sha256`	No
`served_from_cache`	No	True when data.gov.lt failed and a stored copy was served instead.
`source_fetched_at`	No	Oldest fetch time of any source response used (cache incl.).
`has_non_text_elements`	No
`human_readable_citation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

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 the result includes extracted text, metadata and a download URL, which is useful but does not disclose rate limits, size limits, or behavior when extraction is unavailable.

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 zero filler; the Lithuanian term 'priedas' is parenthetically glossed without bloating the text.

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 the description need not explain return values, yet it briefly names them. For a two-parameter read-only fetch, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing; only calling-sequence guidance is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the lt_list_attachments provenance for priedo_id and the example format for tar_kodas. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (fetch one attachment of an act) and names the content returned (text, metadata, download URL). The word 'one' implicitly contrasts with the sibling lt_list_attachments, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: it's a retrieval-by-id tool, so the agent infers it must first obtain an attachment id via lt_list_attachments — but that hint lives in the schema, not the description. No when-not guidance or explicit alternative is given.

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