AI Law Tracker

Get an AI law’s citations

get_law_citations

Read-onlyIdempotent

The citation projection for one law record: its identifier, title, audited alternate names, and a formatting-convenience suggested citation over public metadata (clearly labelled — never presented as an official cite). Free at every tier. No fabrication. Data by AI Law Tracker (CC BY 4.0). Informational only — not legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The record uuid (the `id` from a list/search result).

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond annotations: 'Free at every tier. No fabrication. Data by AI Law Tracker (CC BY 4.0). Informational only — not legal advice.' This clarifies data licensing and limitations, complementing the 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality; the second adds licensing and disclaimers. Every sentence earns its place.

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, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers what the tool returns, the data source, and important disclaimers (no fabrication, not legal advice). No gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema describes the single parameter 'id' as 'The record uuid (the `id` from a list/search result).' The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: it retrieves pre-computed citation metadata (identifier, title, alternate names, suggested citation) for a single law record. It distinguishes from siblings like get_law (which gets the law itself) and other info tools.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that it is for citation projection, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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?