ie-eli-mcp

ie_coverage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check which Irish legislation this connector covers and where known gaps exist, with fallback sources for missing items. Use before concluding a law is absent from the Statute Book.

Instructions

Declare what this connector covers, how it is sourced, and what it does NOT cover.

Call this before telling a user that the law "does not contain" something, and whenever a search comes back empty: the absence may be a gap in this connector rather than in the law. Every gap carries a fallback saying where to look instead.

Returns: Coverage with families, an as-of note, and a non-empty list of known gaps.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No		ok
`families`	No
`as_of_note`	Yes	States what the dates mean, and what they do not promise.
`known_gaps`	No	Never empty. An empty list would mean 'not checked', not 'no gaps'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.3.3Aug 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds practical meaning beyond the annotations: empty results may indicate a connector gap rather than an actual absence in the law, and every gap includes a fallback. This transforms the abstract openWorldHint into concrete agent behavior.

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 tight, front-loaded, and every sentence adds operational value. The return note is brief and supplements the output schema without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers why, when, and how to use the tool. It also communicates the critical fallback behavior an agent needs to correctly handle empty search results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter documentation is not a burden. The schema already covers everything needed, and the description provides no parameter details because none exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's job: declare coverage, sourcing, and exclusions for the connector. It also differentiates itself from sibling content-retrieval tools by positioning itself as the metadata/coverage check rather than a source of legal text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit triggers are provided: call before telling a user the law 'does not contain' something, and whenever a search returns empty. This gives the agent unambiguous conditions for when to invoke the tool and explains why it matters.

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

Deploy Server