TAAP MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

lt_get_provisions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an act's provision structure with stable IDs and references, including chapters, articles, parts, and points, filtered by date or document, and optionally return full text.

Instructions

List the provisions of an act (its structure) with stable ids and references.

Laws: chapters, articles (str-5), parts (str-5-d-2), points (str-5-d-2-p-3), subpoints. Subordinate acts: chapters and points (p-4, p-4.1). Approved documents and annexes inside the act are numbered documents (document 1, 2 ...; ids d1:p-24.1). Amendment notes are in each provision's notes; the act's amending acts in amendments.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	ISO date - parse the text in force that day (default: today).
`document`	No	only this numbered document (0 = the act itself).
`tar_kodas`	Yes	e.g. ``"1001010ISTAIII-1524"``.
`include_text`	No	full own text per provision (default: a short snippet).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	No
`stale`	No
`title`	No
`total`	No
`header`	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.
`documents`	No
`tar_kodas`	No
`amendments`	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
`human_readable_citation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: provision ids follow specific patterns, amendment notes appear in each provision's notes, and amending acts appear in amendments.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses compact detail to explain id conventions and special document cases. It is dense but mostly earns its length, though the formatting and parenthetical examples make it less immediately scannable.

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?

For a structure-listing tool with an output schema and safety annotations already present, the description gives enough context to call it correctly. It explains id conventions, subordinate act differences, numbered documents, and amendment-related fields, with only sibling routing left implicit.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds some meaning around document numbering and provision id structure, but it does not materially extend parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the provisions of an act (its structure)'. It clearly explains what is returned, including stable ids and references, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as lt_get_provision or lt_get_text.

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?

The description implies usage by explaining that this tool lists an act's provision structure, but it does not state when to choose this over alternatives like lt_get_provision for a single provision or lt_get_text for full text. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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