Skip to main content
Glama

Ecfr

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Section Text

get_section_text
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the actual REGULATION TEXT currently in force — a single CFR section OR a whole CFR part. PREFER for "what does 14 CFR 91.113 say", "read the text of ", "the exact wording of ", "text of 22 CFR part 120", "40 CFR part 261". Pass the title number plus EITHER a section (e.g. title 14, section "91.113" → that section) OR a part (e.g. title 22, part "120" → every section in the part). Returns the heading(s) and full paragraph text. Use search_regulations first to find the citation if unknown.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoOptional point-in-time date, YYYY-MM-DD. If omitted, the title's current 'up_to_date_as_of' date is used.
partNoA part number, e.g. "120", "261". Returns the text of every section in that part. Ignored if `section` is given.
titleYesCFR title number, 1–50 (e.g. 14 = Aeronautics and Space, 29 = Labor, 22 = Foreign Relations).
sectionNoA single section number including the part, e.g. "91.113", "1910.132", "744.11" (the part is the number before the dot). Returns just that section.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "section": "91.113",
+    "title": 14
+  },
+  {
+    "part": "120",
+    "title": 22
+  }
+]
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / part
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "A part number, e.g. \"120\", \"261\". Returns the text of every section in that part. Ignored if `section` is given.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / section / description
      Previous value: -"Section number including the part, e.g. \"91.113\", \"1910.132\", \"744.11\" (the part is the number before the dot)."New value: +"A single section number including the part, e.g. \"91.113\", \"1910.132\", \"744.11\" (the part is the number before the dot). Returns just that section."
    • changedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Previous value: -"CFR title number, 1–50 (e.g. 14 = Aeronautics and Space, 29 = Labor)."New value: +"CFR title number, 1–50 (e.g. 14 = Aeronautics and Space, 29 = Labor, 22 = Foreign Relations)."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "title",
-  "section"
-]New value: +[
+  "title"
+]
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns 'heading(s) and full paragraph text', which is useful but not extensive. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and includes examples, but could be slightly more concise. However, each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given 4 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, the description explains return values (heading(s) and full paragraph), parameter logic, and prerequisites (use search_regulations). It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of section and part parameters, and provides examples clarifying how to pass them. This goes beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Get the actual REGULATION TEXT' and provides specific examples like 'what does 14 CFR 91.113 say'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_regulations by specifying that this tool is for exact wording.

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?

Explicitly says 'PREFER for ...' and advises 'Use search_regulations first to find the citation if unknown'. This provides clear context on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

All Ecfr toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates (beta is currently identical), and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence plus deep_research vs ask_pipeworx create real selection ambiguity. Some clusters like the memory trio and CFR read tools are distinct, but the overall set is confusing.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern (search_regulations, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim), but noun-first names (entity_profile, title_structure, ai_visibility_check) and prefix families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) break the pattern. The conventions are mixed but still readable and mostly predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy for any single server, and the bulk of them (Polymarket betting, memory, AI visibility, npm scanning, subscriptions) are unrelated to the server's 'Ecfr' name, which suggests a narrow regulatory focus. This is a kitchen-sink scope, making the count feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness3/5

The eCFR-specific surface is thin — list_titles, search_regulations, get_section_text, and title_structure cover basic read/search but lack version history, update tracking, or agency-level navigation. Other mini-domains (data lookup, polymarket, subscriptions, memory) are individually fairly complete, but the absence of a unified purpose leaves clear gaps overall.

Resources