TAAP MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

lt_list_attachments

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists attachments for a specified Lithuanian legal act using its TAR code, so users can retrieve associated files and supporting documents.

Instructions

List the attachments (priedai) of an act.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tar_kodas`	Yes	e.g. ``"2014-21296"``.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	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
`source_url`	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.
`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.).
`human_readable_citation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing about ordering, empty-result behavior, or how listed attachments map to lt_get_attachment, so it is only minimum viable rather than contradictory.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is arguably under-specified rather than wordy, but nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the definition is functionally callable. However, for a listing tool the description omits any hint of result shape, empty-list behavior, or the relationship to lt_get_attachment, leaving the agent to infer the list-then-fetch workflow.

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% with a single required parameter (tar_kodas) and an example value, so the schema carries the burden. The description never mentions the parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond it – baseline 3.

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 ('List the attachments') and clarifies that attachments belong to an act, which distinguishes it from lt_get_attachment (single-item retrieval). It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the list/get split is inferable from the verb.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus lt_get_attachment, no precondition that the act must exist or that tar_kodas comes from lt_search/lt_get_act, and no note about what to do with the result. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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