Skip to main content
Glama

cz_get_text

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the complete consolidated text of a Czech legal act by specifying its year and number.

Instructions

Fetch the full consolidated text of a Czech act by year and number.

The text is assembled from the latest consolidated version's ordered HTML fragments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearYese.g. ``2019``.
numberYese.g. ``110``.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNo
formatNotext/plain (assembled from consolidated HTML fragments)
numberNo
contentNo
eli_uriNo
citationNo
eli_noteNoeli_uri is the Czech national ELI IRI minted by the e-Sbirka open-data graph (opendata.eselpoint.gov.cz/esel-esb/eli/cz/sb/...). It follows the ELI URI template but is not a data.europa.eu-resolvable identifier; the human-readable page is on e-sbirka.gov.cz.
byte_sizeNo
source_urlNo
dataset_noteNoe-Sbirka (the Czech Collection of Laws, Sbirka zakonu) is served as RDF via the opendata.eselpoint.gov.cz SPARQL endpoint (CC BY 4.0, ~92k acts, updated daily). Acts are addressed by year + number; the act IRI follows the ELI URI template (eli/cz/sb/{year}/{number}). cz_get_text returns the latest consolidated version's text, assembled from ordered HTML fragments - there is no single official XML/PDF file, so the text is reconstructed, not a verbatim document. Language: Czech.
version_dateNo
fragment_countNo
human_readable_citationNo
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that the text is assembled from ordered HTML fragments of the latest consolidated version, which provides useful context beyond annotations but does not fully explain behavior like output format or permissions.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second adds a key detail about the assembly. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema present, rich annotations), the description adequately covers what it does and how it works. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values. It could mention how the text is returned (e.g., plain text or HTML) but that is likely covered by the output schema.

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% (both year and number are described in the input schema). The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states it fetches the full consolidated text of a Czech act by year and number, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cz_get_act or cz_search, which could cause confusion.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings. The description does not include any when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, leaving the agent to guess.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/matematicsolutions/cz-eli-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server