Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-isap

mcp-isap

by matematicsolutions
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_act

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve full metadata of a Polish legal act (e.g., Dz.U., M.P.) using its ELI identifier. Returns title, type, validity status, enactment date, keywords, and links to HTML/PDF texts.

Instructions

Pobiera szczegoly aktu po identyfikatorze ELI (np. 'DU/2018/1000' dla Ustawy o ochronie danych osobowych z 2018 r.). Zwraca pelne metadane: tytul, typ, status obowiazywania, wejscie w zycie, slowa kluczowe, linki do tekstu HTML/PDF i strony ISAP.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "eli": "<eli>"
    },
    "name": "get_act"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eliYesIdentyfikator ELI w formacie PUBLISHER/YEAR/POSITION, np. 'DU/2018/1000'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds valuable behavioral context: what metadata is returned (title, type, status, dates, keywords, links to HTML/PDF/ISAP). No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences, no redundancy. Every word adds value: states action, gives example, lists returned data.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, annotations present), description is fully adequate. Explains purpose, input format, and return content comprehensively.

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?

Single parameter 'eli' has 100% schema coverage. Description adds an example and format specification ('PUBLISHER/YEAR/POSITION') beyond the schema, clarifying the expected input.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Pobiera' and resource 'aktu', provides an example ELI identifier, and lists returned metadata (title, type, status, dates, keywords, links). Clearly distinguishes from siblings 'get_act_text' and 'search_acts'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clearly indicates usage when an ELI identifier is known. Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear and the sibling tools provide implicit differentiation.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools