cfr-compliance-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

get_version_history

Fetch point-in-time version history for a CFR title, part, or section, filtered by issue date. Determine which regulation version was in effect on a specific date for contract compliance.

Instructions

Fetch point-in-time version history for a CFR title, optionally scoped to a part/section and/or filtered by an issue-date range.

Use this to determine which version of a regulation was in effect on a specific date (e.g. when a contract was signed), as opposed to retrieve_section/retrieve_part/retrieve_title, which return the text as of a date but not its full change history.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`part`	No	optional CFR part number to scope the history to.
`title`	Yes	CFR title number (1-50).
`section`	No	optional CFR section number to scope the history to.
`issue_date_on`	No	optional exact issue date filter (YYYY-MM-DD).
`issue_date_gte`	No	optional "on or after" issue date filter (YYYY-MM-DD).
`issue_date_lte`	No	optional "on or before" issue date filter (YYYY-MM-DD).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 5, 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 full burden and does well: 'Fetch' indicates a read operation, and the contrast with retrieve_section/part/title clarifies that this tool returns history rather than point-in-time text. It doesn't mention pagination or result limits, but the presence of an output schema partially mitigates that.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concrete use case and clear differentiation from siblings. Every sentence earns its place.

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 6-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scoping/filtering options, the primary use case, and how it differs from sibling tools. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly paraphrases the scoping/filtering behavior already present in the schema and adds little new parameter-level semantic detail.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch point-in-time version history for a CFR title.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling text-retrieval tools by stating it returns full change history, not just the text as of a date.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use the tool: to determine which version of a regulation was in effect on a specific date. It also names the relevant alternatives and explains why they are not appropriate for change-history needs.

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

Install Server