Skip to main content
Glama

Get Document

get_document
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get full details for a Federal Register document by its document number (e.g., "2024-12345"). Returns title, abstract, full text link, agencies, dates, and docket information.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numberYesFederal Register document number (e.g., "2024-12345")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoDocument type (rule, notice, etc.)
datesNoKey dates related to document
titleNoDocument title
actionNoAction description
pdf_urlNoURL to PDF version of document
abstractNoDocument abstract or summary
agenciesNoList of responsible agencies
citationNoCitation reference
html_urlNoURL to HTML version of document
docket_idsNoAssociated docket identifiers
page_lengthNoNumber of pages in document
significantNoWhether document is marked as significant
document_numberNoFederal Register document number
publication_dateNoPublication date (ISO format)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds specific return fields (title, abstract, etc.) and input format example. No contradictions; adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence packs purpose and input format; second lists return fields. Front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With output schema present and only one simple parameter, description is sufficient. Lists key return fields and input format. Adequate for the tool's low 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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds an explicit example (2024-12345) and clarifies it's a Federal Register document number, enhancing parameter understanding beyond 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?

Clearly states it retrieves full details of a Federal Register document by document number. The verb 'get' and resource 'document' are highly specific. Distinguishes from sibling 'search_documents' which is for searching, not direct retrieval.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implied usage: when you have a document number. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools mentioned. Lacks comparison with 'search_documents' or other retrieval tools.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Several tools are nearly indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior, and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlaps heavily with them. Additionally, entity_profile, compare_entities, deep_research, and validate_claim all cover similar company/factual research territory, creating frequent selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes multiple conventions: descriptive lowercase phrases (ai_visibility_check, compare_entities, valid claim) coexist with verb_noun (search_documents, recent_rules) and inconsistent underscores (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, resolve_entity). There is no single recognizable pattern.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named 'Federal Register' but only 3 of 34 tools (search_documents, recent_rules, get_document) relate to that domain. The other 31 tools form a sprawling Pipeworx data and prediction-market suite, making the count extreme and inappropriate for the declared purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the stated Federal Register domain, the surface is minimal: search, recent listing, and single-document retrieval, with no docket browsing, full-text search within documents, or agency-specific navigation. The broader Pipeworx capability set is comprehensive but irrelevant to the server's name, leaving obvious gaps for the actual purpose.