Rechtsinformationen Bund DE MCP Server

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits including: 403 Forbidden errors may occur, not all historical versions are accessible via API, and it accepts three different input formats (full URLs, partial paths, or ELI/ECLI identifiers). It could be improved by describing the return value structure or rate limits, but the error condition disclosure is valuable.

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 well-structured with clear headers, but contains redundancy between sections. The 'Parameters' section largely repeats information already in the schema, and the 'Usage Priority' section repeats guidance from 'When to use.' The markdown formatting and emoji add visual structure but also verbosity for an AI agent. Every sentence is relevant, but some sections are duplicative.

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?

Given that no output schema exists and no annotations are provided, the description should ideally explain the return structure for the three format options (JSON, HTML, XML). While it mentions format options, it doesn't describe what the successful response contains or its structure. The error handling (403) is documented, but the success case remains opaque.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by providing concrete examples of the three accepted documentId formats (full URLs, partial paths, ELI/ECLI identifiers) and explaining that documentId corresponds to the '@id' field from search results. It also clarifies when to use each format option (HTML for readable, JSON for structured data).

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 explicitly states the tool 'Retrieves complete document content from rechtsinformationen.bund.de' and specifies it works with 'both legislation and case law documents.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by specifying this is for retrieving full text when you already have a specific document identifier, versus searching.

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?

Contains explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with specific guidance. Explicitly names the sibling alternative 'intelligente_rechtssuche' for initial searches. Provides a clear workflow: 'Search first → Get results → Use this tool for full text.' This is exactly the type of explicit when/when-not guidance that prevents tool selection errors.

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