Skip to main content
Glama

Probative legal-marketing data

Lawyer advertising rules for one state

get_state_rules
Read-onlyIdempotent

Every lawyer advertising rule for one US state or DC in one call: filing, disclaimers, waiting periods, claims, referrals, language, recording, texting, privacy. Results are not legal advice.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateYesTwo-letter code (TX), or DC. Full names (Texas) also work.
response_formatNoconcise

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / detail
      Removed value: -{
      -  "default": "summary",
      -  "enum": [
      -    "summary",
      -    "full"
      -  ],
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • addedInput schema / properties / response_format
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": "concise",
      +  "enum": [
      +    "concise",
      +    "detailed"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / detail / description
      Removed 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."
    • removedOutput schema / properties
      Removed 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"
      -  }
      -}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / detail
      Added 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"
      +}
  4. Added

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup. The description adds a useful disclaimer that results are not legal advice and signals complete one-call retrieval, but it does not discuss freshness, ordering, rate limits, or unsupported-state behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact list of covered rule categories. The legal-advice disclaimer is brief and relevant, and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given the annotations and output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or safety behavior. It adequately describes the domain and scope, but it leaves important gaps around response_format semantics and routing relative to sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already fully documents the required state parameter, including two-letter codes, DC, and full names. The description reinforces that scope only weakly, and it does not explain the optional response_format parameter or how concise versus detailed output differs.

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 gives a specific resource and scope: every lawyer advertising rule for one US state or DC. It also lists covered topics, making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself somewhat by emphasizing 'one state or DC in one call,' but it does not explicitly name siblings like get_rule or search_rules.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies this is for comprehensive state-level rule retrieval rather than single-rule lookup. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_rule, search_rules, compare_states, or get_ad_filing_requirements.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources