Skip to main content
Glama
muchsneaks

easa-regs-mcp

by muchsneaks
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Get EASA rule

get_easa_rule
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the full text of an EASA rule (IR, AMC, GM, or CS) with metadata, citation string, and linked AMC/GM. If a reference is ambiguous, return matching candidates instead.

Instructions

Return the full text of one EASA rule (IR, AMC, GM or CS) with metadata, a citation string and its related AMC/GM. If the reference is ambiguous, returns the candidates instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYesRule reference or title, e.g. 'FCL.740', 'AMC1 FCL.740(b)(1)', 'SERA.5005', 'NCO.OP.110', or an ERulesId like 'ERULES-1963177438-9910'
bookNoDisambiguate when the same reference exists in several books (e.g. 'Article 2')
max_charsNo
include_relatedNoAlso list the parent IR and linked AMC/GM

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context: it returns metadata, a citation string, and related AMC/GM, and discloses the ambiguous-reference behavior (returns candidates instead of erroring) – a trait not in the annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core outcome and followed by the edge-case behavior. No waste.

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 no output schema, the description covers what is returned (full text, metadata, citation, related items) and the ambiguity fallback. Minor gap: it doesn't mention max_chars truncation of the returned text, which is relevant given the 60k cap.

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 75%, so the schema already documents ref, book, and include_related. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., ref format or max_chars truncation behavior) beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (full text of one EASA rule) with exact scope, and names the content types (IR, AMC, GM, CS). Clearly differentiable from siblings search_easa_rules (search) and browse_easa_toc (navigate).

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?

Implies the single-rule retrieval use case versus search tools, and notes the ambiguous-reference fallback that returns candidates. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative (search_easa_rules) for when the exact reference is unknown.

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