Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Global law

by com.lexifina
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Who wrote

who_wrote
Read-onlyIdempotent

Which law wrote each word (or each line) of a provision as it stood on a date, with a count of words per law.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "who_wrote"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoAn in-force date, YYYY-MM-DD, or "today". Defaults to today.
pathYesA provision file, for example united-states/federal/usc/title-11/1182.md, from find_provision.
offsetNoWhere the part starts, in characters: the offset the previous part gave for the next one (default 0).
max_charsNoLongest part of the text in one answer (default 40000, at least 1000, at most 100000). A longer text comes in parts.
granularityNoword (default) or line.
include_runsNoAlso give each run of words with its law as a list (the marked text in the answer has the same).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"A provision file, for example united-states/federal/usc/title-11/1182.md, germany/bund/acts/grundgesetz/artikel/016a.md or united-kingdom/uk/legislation/uksi/2014/1530/regulation/13.md. Use find_provision to look one up."New value: +"A provision file, for example united-states/federal/usc/title-11/1182.md, from find_provision."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are a snapshot tied to an in-force date and that per-law word counts are returned. It says nothing about cost, size limits, or ordering beyond what the schema's offset/max_chars already encode.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded. The parenthetical '(or each line)' and the trailing count clause both earn their place by describing real output differences. Slightly dense phrasing, but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description only needs to convey the concept and the temporal framing, which it does. Six parameters and pagination are handled by the schema. A brief note on how attribution is derived (e.g. amendment-level sourcing) would close the remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including date, offset, max_chars, granularity and include_runs is already documented in structured form. The description only echoes the word/line granularity choice and the date framing without adding format or interaction detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific and unusual verb+resource: attributing each word (or line) of a provision to the law that wrote it, as of a given date, plus per-law word counts. That is clearly distinguishable from read_law or provision_history. It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the output description — an agent infers you call this when you need authorship attribution rather than the text itself. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative such as provision_history or read_law. The one concrete routing hint is parameter-level: path comes from find_provision.

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

All Global law toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources