Retrieve the authentic full text and paragraph numbers of a German federal court decision by document ID for precise case law research and citation.
Retrieve the authentic full text and Randnummern of a court decision by document ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully signals that the returned text is the 'authentic' authoritative version and that Randnummern numbering is included, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, completeness of the text, or not-found behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the action, the payload, and the key. No filler, nothing wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and this is inherently a read-only lookup. Still, the absence of any annotation coverage leaves error behavior and the scope of the retrieved text (full vs excerpt) unspecified.
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?
One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'by document ID' does identify the parameter's meaning (a document identifier), but adds no format, source, or example guidance beyond that.
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 (Retrieve) and resource (full text and Randnummern of a court decision) with the lookup key (document ID). It implicitly distinguishes itself from discovery tools like search_precedents, but never names a sibling 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?
Usage is only implied: the 'by document ID' phrasing signals a post-search lookup, so an agent can infer it follows search_precedents, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of what happens when the ID is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.