Fetch the exact article of a Chinese law by name and article number. Get the full text, chapter location, effective date, and a citable source link.
取某部法律的指定条文原文。返回条文全文、章节位置、施行日期与可引用的网页链接。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| law | Yes | 法律名称或 id，如「民法典」或 civil-code | |
| article_number | Yes | 条号（阿拉伯数字），如 577 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned fields (full text, chapter location, effective date, citable link), which is useful, but it says nothing about read-only nature, error behavior when an article is not found, or law-name matching rules.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and followed by what is returned. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return content adequately. It falls short on sibling routing, error handling, and any edge-case behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: both parameters already have descriptions and examples (law name/id, article number). The description adds no syntax or format details 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: retrieve the original text of a specified article of a law. It is clearly distinct in kind from search_laws/search_in_law, but it never names or differentiates against those siblings explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of the sibling search tools as alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the purpose itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed