AI Law Tracker

Recent significant AI-law changes

list_law_feed

Read-onlyIdempotent

A lean, human-scannable stream of the newest significant AI-law changes (inserts + real field changes, no value diffs). Paid feature (Developer+). Data by AI Law Tracker (CC BY 4.0). Informational only — not legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Page size (max 100; free/anon are capped lower).
`scope`	No	One of: state, federal, eu, global.
`since`	No	ISO timestamp cursor.
`jurisdiction`	No	Exact jurisdiction slug (e.g. california, us-federal, eu, canada). See list_jurisdictions.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: it notes the paid access requirement, data source and license (AI Law Tracker, CC BY 4.0), and the disclaimer that it is not legal advice. It also specifies the feed excludes value diffs. This enriches the understanding of behavior without contradicting 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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add essential context (paid feature, data source, disclaimer). Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the purpose, access restrictions, data source, and legal disclaimer. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned data (e.g., fields in the stream), and there is no output schema to compensate. For a feed tool, this is a notable gap, though the 'human-scannable' phrasing implies a simple format.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description does not repeat or add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.

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 lists the newest significant AI-law changes, specifying it includes inserts and real field changes but no value diffs. The verb 'list' and resource 'law feed' are explicit, and the scope is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_recent_changes.

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 mentions it is a paid feature (Developer+) and is informational only, but it does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_recent_changes. The phrase 'significant AI-law changes' implies a usage context, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are given.

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?