AI Law Tracker

Get one sector’s AI-law cross-section

get_sector_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

One sector’s cross-section: the free awareness OVERVIEW (name, inherent risk, enforcement bodies, federal penalty structure) PLUS the derived per-law obligations + penalties for that sector. The overview is open to every tier; the derived obligations/penalties are the salable interpreted layer (Pro+ for obligations) — under-tier callers get a one-item preview + upsell (meta.preview), never a blank wall. Every derived record is grounded in a real law + its primary source (no LLM). Use list_sectors for valid slugs. NOT legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sector`	Yes	A sector slug (see list_sectors), e.g. healthcare, finance, hr-recruiting.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate safe read operation. Description adds context about tiered access, preview vs. full data, and grounding in real laws. No contradiction found.

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?

Concise yet informative; every sentence adds value. Could be slightly improved by structuring the upsell part more compactly.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return structure (overview fields, derived obligations/penalties, preview for under-tier). Sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and already explains the 'sector' parameter well (slug from list_sectors). Description merely repeats this guidance, adding marginal value.

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 that the tool returns a sector's cross-section including free overview and derived obligations/penalties. It uses specific language and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sectors.

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 instructs to use list_sectors for valid slugs, describes tier-based access and upsell behavior, and clarifies what different tiers receive.

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?