Retrieve the exact article text from Taiwan's interior decoration regulations by providing law ID and article number. Optionally specify a date to get the version of the law in effect at that time.
Get one article from the P0 law snapshot by law_id and article number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| law_id | Yes | ||
| article_no | Yes | ||
| as_of_date | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authorization, or handles errors (e.g., article not found). Behavioral traits are absent.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no extraneous information. It is appropriately short for such a straightforward tool.
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?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description omits critical context: what 'P0 law snapshot' means, possible return values, error behavior, and any prerequisites. It is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only mention two of three parameters. 'law_id' and 'article_no' are named, but no format, constraints, or the optional 'as_of_date' are explained, adding minimal value beyond parameter names.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get'), resource ('article'), and identifiers ('law_id' and 'article number'), providing a specific and unambiguous purpose. It distinguishes from siblings by naming a unique resource and identifiers.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_local_rule' or 'search_law'. The description does not mention exclusions or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.