get_ruleOne state's lawyer advertising rule on one topic, e.g. can a firm text leads, record intake calls, pay referral fees, what disclaimer every ad must include. Results are not legal advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | Two-letter code (TX), or DC. Full names (Texas) also work. | |
| topic | Yes | ||
| response_format | No | concise |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / detailRemoved value: -{
- "default": "summary",
- "enum": [
- "summary",
- "full"
- ],
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / response_formatAdded value: +{
+ "default": "concise",
+ "enum": [
+ "concise",
+ "detailed"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / detail / descriptionRemoved value: -"summary (default): each record as its id, a 1-2 sentence text, status, date checked, one source URL and the page to cite. full: every field, every source and the per-record provenance."Input schema / properties / topic / descriptionRemoved value: -"filing: Ad filing or review; requiredContent: What each ad must include; waitingPeriod: Waiting period for targeted injury contact; claims: Results, testimonials and “specialist” claims; referral: Referral services and lead generators; language: Ads in Spanish and other languages; recording: Call-recording consent; texting: Texting and telemarketing law; privacy: Privacy and health-data law"Output schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "meta": {
- "description": "Credit line (attribution), citation, DOI, version, license (CC BY 4.0), disclaimer, notice and the page to cite",
- "required": [
- "attribution",
- "license",
- "disclaimer",
- "notice"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- "nextCursor": {
- "description": "Pass as `cursor` to get the next page; null on the last page",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "provenance": {
- "description": "Where this came from: the publisher of the dataset, the dataset and its version DOI, the record id, the original source (who published it and its URL), the day that source was last checked, and when this answer was retrieved",
- "properties": {
- "citeUrl": {
- "description": "The page to cite",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "dataset": {
- "description": "Dataset id",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "datasetTitle": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "dateChecked": {
- "description": "YYYY-MM-DD the record was last checked against its source",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "doi": {
- "description": "Version DOI",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "doiUrl": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "line": {
- "description": "The same facts as one sentence, to quote under an answer",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "publisher": {
- "description": "Publisher of the dataset",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "recordId": {
- "description": "Stable id of the record",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "retrievedAt": {
- "description": "ISO 8601 time this answer was served",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "source": {
- "description": "The original source: statute, rule, bar opinion, court report, agency table or platform policy",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "sourceKind": {
- "description": "primary or secondary",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "sourceUrl": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "status": {
- "description": "P primary source, S secondary, D default (no specific rule found), U open question",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "version": {
- "description": "Dataset version",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "publisher",
- "dataset",
- "version",
- "retrievedAt"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- }
-}Input schema / properties / detailAdded value: +{
+ "default": "summary",
+ "description": "summary (default): each record as its id, a 1-2 sentence text, status, date checked, one source URL and the page to cite. full: every field, every source and the per-record provenance.",
+ "enum": [
+ "summary",
+ "full"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description needn't cover that. It adds a useful caveat ('Results are not legal advice') and the one-rule-per-state-topic granularity, but says nothing about what happens when a state lacks a rule for that topic or about jurisdiction coverage.
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?
One sentence plus a short caveat, front-loaded with the resource definition before the examples. The example list is a bit of a run-on but every element earns its place by disambiguating topics.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. Still missing the no-rule-found behavior and any sense of how comprehensive the state/topic coverage is, which matters for a lookup tool an agent may call blindly.
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 coverage is only 33%: state is documented, but topic is a bare enum and response_format is entirely undocumented. The examples partially compensate by mapping natural questions onto enum values (texting, recording, referral, disclaimer/requiredContent), but response_format's effect on output is left unexplained.
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 resource and scope: one state's lawyer advertising rule on one topic, with concrete example questions that make the resource tangible. It doesn't name a sibling, so the boundary against get_state_rules or search_rules must be inferred from the singular 'one rule' framing.
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?
No statement of when to use this instead of search_rules, get_state_rules, or compare_states, which are the obvious alternatives. The examples imply a known state+topic lookup but never say so or exclude the search path.
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.