List the California codes and local ordinances available for lookup, and what is not covered. Useful before concluding that a code is unavailable, and for finding the exact document or jurisdiction slug that a lookup takes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jurisdiction | No | Optional. A California city or county slug — returns the documents held for that jurisdiction instead of the statewide list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "applied_question_url": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "browse_url": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "editions": {
- "items": {
- "properties": {
- "id": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "in_force": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "label": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "id",
- "label",
- "in_force"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "groups": {
- "description": "Documents grouped by collection. Statewide: Title 24 first. Jurisdiction: the place's own documents, then those of the jurisdiction that also governs it.",
- "items": {
- "properties": {
- "documents": {
- "items": {
- "properties": {
- "edition": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "slug": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "title": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "url": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "title",
- "slug"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "key": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "label": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "key",
- "label",
- "documents"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "jurisdiction": {
- "properties": {
- "name": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "slug": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "slug",
- "name"
- ],
- "type": [
- "object",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "message": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "municipal": {
- "description": "Statewide only: how many local ordinances are held.",
- "properties": {
- "document_count": {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "jurisdiction_count": {
- "type": "integer"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "document_count",
- "jurisdiction_count"
- ],
- "type": [
- "object",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "notes": {
- "description": "Coverage caveats. Read them before telling a user a code is unavailable.",
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "scope": {
- "enum": [
- "statewide",
- "jurisdiction"
- ],
- "type": "string"
- },
- "status": {
- "enum": [
- "ok",
- "not_found",
- "empty",
- "error"
- ],
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "status"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "applied_question_url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "browse_url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "editions": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "in_force": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "label",
+ "in_force"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "groups": {
+ "description": "Documents grouped by collection. Statewide: Title 24 first. Jurisdiction: the place's own documents, then those of the jurisdiction that also governs it.",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "documents": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "edition": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "title",
+ "slug"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "key": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "key",
+ "label",
+ "documents"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "jurisdiction": {
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "slug",
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "municipal": {
+ "description": "Statewide only: how many local ordinances are held.",
+ "properties": {
+ "document_count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "jurisdiction_count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "document_count",
+ "jurisdiction_count"
+ ],
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "notes": {
+ "description": "Coverage caveats. Read them before telling a user a code is unavailable.",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "scope": {
+ "enum": [
+ "statewide",
+ "jurisdiction"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "enum": [
+ "ok",
+ "not_found",
+ "empty",
+ "error"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing that the output includes negative coverage (what is not available) and the exact slugs needed downstream, which is a behavioral trait annotations cannot express.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tightly written sentences with no redundancy. The core enumeration purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence carries the actionable guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, zero-required-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description tells the agent what is returned (codes, ordinances, gaps, slugs) and how to use it. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single jurisdiction parameter is fully documented in the schema as an optional city/county slug. The description correctly signals that a slug may be needed but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (California codes and local ordinances), plus a distinctive scope: what is and is not covered, and the slugs lookups require. This clearly separates it from lookup_california_code_section and search_california_codes, which retrieve content rather than enumerate availability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives concrete triggers: 'before concluding that a code is unavailable' and 'for finding the exact document or jurisdiction slug that a lookup takes.' That is clear when-to-use context tied to the sibling lookup tool, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer or exclude.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.