TAAP MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

lt_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Lithuanian legal acts by title with optional filters for act type, issuing institution, adoption date range, and in-force status.

Instructions

Search Lithuanian acts by title (case-insensitive) with optional filters.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	max hits (1..200, default 50).
`contains`	No	substring matched against the act title (Lithuanian ``pavadinimas``). Case-insensitive, but not diacritic-insensitive: write Lithuanian letters (``"teisės"``, not ``"teises"``). May be omitted when another filter is given.
`doc_type`	No	optional Lithuanian act type (``rusis``), e.g. ``"Įstatymas"`` (law), ``"Įsakymas"`` (order), ``"Nutarimas"``. Case-insensitive; common types are also accepted without diacritics (``"Istatymas"``).
`adopted_by`	No	part of the issuing institution's name (``priemusi_inst``), e.g. ``"Vyriausybė"``, ``"Sveikatos apsaugos ministr"``, ``"Vilniaus miesto savivaldyb"``.
`adopted_to`	No	ISO date - adopted on or before.
`adopted_from`	No	ISO date - adopted on or after (``priimtas``).
`newest_first`	No	sort by adoption date, newest first (default true).
`in_force_only`	No	only acts the source marks as in force (``galioj_busena="galioja"``).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	No
`total`	Yes
`warning`	No
`cached_at`	No	When that stored copy was fetched.
`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.).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the case-insensitivity trait, but says nothing about behavior with zero arguments (does it return everything up to limit?), whether filters combine with AND, or pagination depth. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a modest add.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though for an 8-parameter tool with all-optional inputs it is arguably undersized rather than optimally sized.

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, so return values need not be described, and the schema documents every parameter. What is missing is what happens when no filter is supplied (broad scan capped at `limit`?) and how multiple filters interact — relevant context for a tool with zero required parameters.

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%, and each parameter carries detailed prose (diacritic sensitivity, Lithuanian examples, ISO date direction). The description only restates the title-matching behavior already documented in the `contains` field, 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 and resource ("Search Lithuanian acts by title") plus the matching semantics (case-insensitive). It implicitly distinguishes itself from full-text siblings like lt_search_in_act and lt_search_court_rulings by scoping to act titles, but never names them 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?

The word "optional" signals that filters need not be supplied, and "by title" implies this is a title-lookup rather than a full-text search. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer lt_search_in_act, lt_get_act, or lt_search_court_rulings, and no stated preconditions or exclusions.

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