Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
qavanin-mcp

qavanin-mcp

by sepehr071
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

History of one article

qv_article_history
Read-onlyIdempotent

Trace every amendment of a single legal article in order, showing change type, date, amending law and replacing text to reveal how the text evolved.

Instructions

Every amendment of one article: type (اصلاحی...), date, the amending law and the replacing text.

Oldest change first; empty if never amended.

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": {
      "section_id": "<section_id>"
    },
    "name": "qv_article_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
section_idYesSection id from qv_law or qv_amendments.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / section_id / description
      Previous value: -"Section id from qv_law (items marked history) or qv_amendments."New value: +"Section id from qv_law or qv_amendments."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond them: results are ordered oldest change first, and the call returns empty rather than erroring when the article was never amended.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the payload contents come first, then ordering and the empty-case behavior. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and mostly discharges it by listing the four returned fields plus ordering and empty-result semantics. It stops short of noting whether the replacing text is truncated or how large histories are handled, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents its pattern and its provenance ('Section id from qv_law or qv_amendments'). The description adds only the notion that the id refers to one article, not new syntax or format guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair: the full amendment history of a single article, and it enumerates the returned fields (type, date, amending law, replacing text). It is clear from the scope ('one article') how this differs from a bulk amendments tool, though it never names the sibling it complements.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'Every amendment of one article' plus 'empty if never amended' tells the agent this is the per-article drill-down, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick it over qv_amendments or qv_law, and no prerequisites are stated.

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