TAAP MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

lt_get_definitions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a Lithuanian legal act's definitions article or point and lists each defined term with its provision ID, optionally as worded in the text in force on a given date.

Instructions

List the terms an act defines (its "sąvokos" article or point) with provision ids.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No	ISO date - definitions as worded in the text in force that day (default: today).
`tar_kodas`	Yes	e.g. ``"1001010ISTAIII-1524"``.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	No
`stale`	No
`title`	No
`total`	No
`eli_uri`	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.
`cached_at`	No	When that stored copy was fetched.
`tar_kodas`	No
`as_of_date`	No
`source_url`	No
`text_source`	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.
`retrieved_at`	No
`suvestines_id`	No
`content_sha256`	No	SHA-256 of the whole act text the provisions were parsed from.
`edition_valid_to`	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.).
`edition_valid_from`	No
`definitions_provision`	No	Id of the article / point that introduces the definitions.
`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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the useful fact that results are scoped to the act's definitions section and returned with provision ids, but says nothing about behavior when the act has no definitions article or how the date affects the result (that lives in the schema).

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 that names the operation, the domain-specific concept, and the return shape with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 a full output schema, complete parameter documentation, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey the intent and scope, which it does. A minor gap is not addressing the empty/no-definitions case, but nothing essential 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%, with both parameters documented in the schema, including the ISO date format and its 'text in force that day' semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List the terms an act defines', and clarifies the concept with the Lithuanian term 'sąvokos' plus the note that these live in a dedicated article or point. It also mentions the return payload (provision ids), so an agent can tell this apart from generic text-fetching siblings like lt_get_text or lt_get_provisions. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, which keeps it from a 5.

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: an agent infers it should call this when it wants the defined-terms section of an act rather than the full text. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over lt_get_provisions or lt_get_text, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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