mcp-lovdata

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Hent én paragraf ordrett

get_article

Retrieve the full text of a specific Norwegian law paragraph or regulation article, including its amendment history, to verify exact wording before citing.

Instructions

Hele teksten i én paragraf, pluss endringshistorikken for den. Bruk dette før du siterer — søketreffene er utdrag med utelatelser. reference tolkes som i get_document, article skrives «§ 14-9» eller «§14-9».

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": {
      "reference": "<reference>",
      "article": "<article>"
    },
    "name": "get_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`article`	Yes	Paragrafnummer, f.eks. "§ 100" eller "14-9".
`context`	No	Ta med paragrafen før og etter.
`reference`	Yes	Lov eller forskrift — navn, dokid eller LOV-kode.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose important behavior: it returns the full paragraph text plus amendment history, and it contrasts this with incomplete search excerpts. For a read-only retrieval tool this is adequate, though it could state safety/permissions explicitly.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The most important guidance—use before quoting—is front-loaded, and parameter clarifications are compactly appended.

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?

For a simple single-article retrieval tool, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and how to format both parameters. No output schema exists, but the description still provides enough return-value context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining that reference is interpreted as in get_document and by specifying accepted article formats like '§ 14-9' or '§14-9'.

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 precise resource: the full verbatim text of one article plus its amendment history. It clearly distinguishes itself from truncated search snippets and from get_document by focusing on a single paragraph.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use this before quoting because search hits are excerpts with omissions. It does not explicitly name all alternatives or state when not to use it, but the provided context makes the intended use unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server