Which held provision versions contain captured publisher cross-references to this work. This reverse lookup reports the publisher references Lex captured; it does not classify their relationship type or assess current legal effect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| work | Yes | the law being cited, e.g. lu-legilux:loi-2020-06-04-a476 | |
| limit | No | default 50 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / work / maxLengthAdded value: +1000Input schema / properties / work / minLengthAdded value: +1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that it reports 'publisher references Lex captured' and explicitly disclaims any classification of relationship type or assessment of current legal effect. This sets accurate expectations about the tool's scope, though it does not detail pagination, output format, or data freshness.
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 two sentences and about 35 words. It front-loads the main purpose, clearly states the scope, and adds a brief limitation note. There is no wasted text or redundancy.
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?
The tool is a simple lookup with 2 parameters (one required) and no output schema. The description explains what it reports and its limitations, which is sufficient for an agent to know when to select it. It could be more complete by describing the return structure, but the schema and high-level description make it adequate.
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?
The input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (work and limit), with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters, so it does not go beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool as a reverse citation lookup: 'Which held provision versions contain captured publisher cross-references to this work.' It specifies the resource (held provision versions) and the action (reverse lookup), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating what it does not do (classify relationship type or assess legal effect).
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to find provision versions that cite a given work. It also includes a 'when-not' by stating it does not classify relationships or assess legal effect, which sets boundaries. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide direct comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but timeline and article_history both cover historical versions, and as_of and in_force_on both relate to state on a date. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve overlap, so confusion is limited.
All names are lowercase with underscores, but they mix noun forms (coverage, provenance), verb forms (search, diff), and prepositional phrases (as_of, in_force_on, changes_in_period). This is readable but lacks a consistent pattern like verb_noun.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized legal research server. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of temporal legal queries, and none feel redundant or superfluous.
The tool set covers search, retrieval, history, citations, coverage gaps, and provenance. It supports both document-level and corpus-level temporal analysis, making it comprehensive for the stated domain of Luxembourg and EU law research.