AI Law Tracker

Get one landmark AI bill

get_bill

Read-onlyIdempotent

One curated landmark bill by slug: its core fields, tiered source URLs, citations (identifier + audited aka), and cross-links. Where a matching live record exists, the response binds the change-timeline link (use get_law_history). Served from the primary-sourced registry (no LLM); a missing binding simply omits the history link, never fabricates one. Use list_bills for valid slugs. Data by AI Law Tracker (CC BY 4.0). Informational only — not legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	A bill slug (see list_bills).

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open world. Description adds context about sourcing from primary registry (no LLM) and handling of missing bindings, going 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?

Three-sentence description efficiently front-loads purpose, details, and usage notes with no extraneous content.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers functionality, usage guidance, behavioral nuances, data source, and legal disclaimer, making it complete.

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?

Input schema covers slug with a brief description. The tool description enriches by explaining the slug's purpose and directing to list_bills for valid values, adding value 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves one curated landmark bill by slug, listing its core fields, tiered source URLs, citations, and cross-links. It distinguishes from siblings like list_bills and get_law_history.

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 directs to use list_bills for valid slugs and mentions get_law_history for change timeline. Clarifies that missing live records omit history links without fabrication, guiding proper usage.

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

All AI Law Tracker tools Inspect

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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools are nearly interchangeable: assess_ai_compliance and generate_compliance_report both take a business profile and return risk score plus obligations, and get_sector_detail overlaps with get_ai_obligations/get_ai_penalties. Additionally, list_recent_changes and list_law_feed both describe dataset changes, while list_jurisdictions overlaps with list_countries and list_us_states. An agent cannot reliably pick the right tool without reading fine print.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set mostly follows a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_ai_law, list_sectors, search_court_opinions). Minor deviations exist: assess_ai_compliance and generate_compliance_report use different verb styles for near-identical actions, and list_ai_law_news is inconsistent with list_ai_laws. Overall the pattern is still predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 28 tools, the server exceeds the comfortable range and includes several redundant or overlapping endpoints that could be consolidated. The broad domain justifies a larger surface, but duplicates like assess_ai_compliance/generate_compliance_report and the three jurisdiction listers make the count feel inflated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core read-only AI-law workflow well: search and retrieve laws, obligations, penalties, deadlines, sectors, jurisdictions, bills, court opinions, news, and change history. Minor gaps remain, such as no way to fetch a single obligation/penalty record by ID and no separate news-detail endpoint, but these are workable and not dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?