Skip to main content
Glama

Lawstronaut

by com.lawstronaut

get_markdown

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves markdown for a specific jurisdiction and optional filters. Use this tool when: - The user asks about available markdown for a portal name, title, section_title, url, status, repealed, publication_date and crawling_date - The user wants to filter markdown for type of authority, issuing authority, source identifier, source secondary identifier, tag Parameters: - iso (required): Filter by Jurisdiction ISO code (e.g. "US"). - portal (optional): Filter by portal name. - limit (optional): Number of results to return. - offset (optional): Number of results to skip. - document_id (optional): Filter by document ID. - repealed (optional): Filter by repealed status. - title (optional): Filter by title. - section_title (optional): Filter by section title. - url (optional): Filter by URL. - status (optional): Filter by status. - crawling_date (optional): Filter by crawling date. - last_updated (optional): Filter by last updated date. - last_amendment (optional): Filter by last amendment date. - publication_date (optional): Filter by publication date. - expiration_date (optional): Filter by expiration date. - effective_date (optional): Filter by effective date. - date_of_enactment (optional): Filter by date of enactment. - date_of_decision (optional): Filter by date of decision. - file_data_only (optional): Return file data only. - issuing_authority (optional): Filter by issuing authority. - type_of_authority (optional): Filter by type of authority. - source_identifier (optional): Filter by source identifier. - source_secondary_identifier (optional): Filter by secondary source identifier. - tag (optional): Filter by tag. - lang (optional): Filter by language. Returns: - Content markdown list with document_id, content_markdown

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
isoYesFilter by Jurisdiction ISO code (e.g. 'US')
tagNoFilter by tag
urlNoFilter by URL
langNoFilter by language
limitNoNumber of results to return
titleNoFilter by title
offsetNoNumber of results to skip
portalNoFilter by portal name
statusNoFilter by status
versionNoFilter by version
repealedNoFilter by repealed status
document_idNoFilter by document ID
last_updatedNoFilter by last updated date
crawling_dateNoFilter by crawling date
section_titleNoFilter by section title
effective_dateNoFilter by effective date
file_data_onlyNoReturn file data only
last_amendmentNoFilter by last amendment date
expiration_dateNoFilter by expiration date
date_of_decisionNoFilter by date of decision
publication_dateNoFilter by publication date
date_of_enactmentNoFilter by date of enactment
issuing_authorityNoFilter by issuing authority
source_identifierNoFilter by source identifier
type_of_authorityNoFilter by type of authority
source_secondary_identifierNoFilter by secondary source identifier

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds context about return format ('Content markdown list with document_id, content_markdown'), which is not in annotations. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage conditions, but the parameter listing is lengthy and largely duplicates the schema. Could be more concise by omitting the parameter list or referencing the schema.

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?

With 26 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains each parameter's purpose and the return content. It covers the tool's input and output sufficiently for an agent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by listing all parameters in a readable format and describing the return structure, which the schema does not cover.

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?

Description clearly states 'Retrieves markdown for a specific jurisdiction and optional filters', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_document_text or get_source_url by focusing on markdown content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly lists use cases: 'user asks about available markdown for portal name, title, section_title, url, status, repealed, publication_date and crawling_date'. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives, which slightly lowers the score.

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

All Lawstronaut toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but evidence_pull and get_document_text both return full text, which could cause confusion. Other tools like list_documents and get_markdown are clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names follow a mix of 'list_', 'get_', and one-off names like 'evidence_pull' and 'horizon_scan'. The verb_noun pattern is present but inconsistent.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is reasonable for a legal document retrieval server, though some functionality overlaps (e.g., multiple ways to get document text). Still well-scoped for the domain.

Completeness4/5

Covers browse, filter, and retrieve operations comprehensively. Missing a general text search tool, but horizon_scan offers a recent-changes scan. Minor gap.

Resources