Skip to main content
Glama

Syfert Legal Research

by com.syfert
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Read a statute or rule

get_statute
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the full text of a statute, rule, or code section: the current codification in the edition this corpus holds. Every answer carries currency (edition, current_through, current_through_basis, last_verified, text_last_changed = when our copy last changed, last_amended_year, effective_date, history_note, status, successor, versions_available) and temporal_note. OPERATIVE DATE: statute text is the edition this corpus holds, not the law on every date. For a crime, a contract, a limitations period or a procedural step, establish the operative date first (offense, contract, accrual or filing date) and pass it as as_of (YYYY-MM-DD); say so when the text postdates the facts, since an older offense may be charged under a predecessor section. With as_of, a section amended or enacted after that date returns temporal_warning FIRST, with the history note and, where this corpus kept it, the prior text (prior_text_available; most corpora keep none). A repealed or renumbered section returns status_warning with its successor. currency.status is current | sunset (operative until currency.sunset_date; successor names the version that takes over) | future (not yet operative; effective_date is when it starts) | expired | repealed | renumbered, and anything but current leads with status_warning. Where the later version is held (California sections with more than one version), as_of on or after its operative date returns that text in as_of_version. A U.S. Code section can also be omitted (dropped from the Code by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel and no longer printed; not a repeal): it leads with status_warning too, and the history note says why. A CFR section removed from the eCFR is status removed: status_warning REMOVED names the removal's effective date (currency.sunset_date) and the eCFR point-in-time link for the text in force before it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNoOptional operative date, YYYY-MM-DD (offense, contract, accrual or filing date). When the section was amended or enacted after it, the answer leads with temporal_warning (severity amended_after | enacted_after | text_older_than_as_of | unknown_history), the history note and, when this corpus kept it, the prior text (prior_text_available); otherwise as_of_check says no later change is recorded. On or after a held successor version's operative date, as_of_version carries that version's text.
offsetNoCharacter offset for paging long sections
citationYesSection as commonly cited: "83.49", "16-5-1", "174.02". Multi-code states (TX/CA/NY) need the code name too: "Tex. Penal Code 22.01".
max_charsNoMax characters of body text (default 40000)
jurisdictionYesWhich corpus: any two-letter state code (all 50 states + dc), or fl_statute (Fla. Stat.), fl_rule (FL court rules), fac (Florida Administrative Code, "6A-6.03019"), ga (O.C.G.A.), usc, cfr, fedrule, sg (sentencing guidelines). A state's COURT RULES live in the SAME corpus as its statutes — pass the state code and cite the rule as lawyers there do: "TRCP 166a" (tx), "MCR 2.116"/"MRE 403" (mi), "C.R.C.P. 56" (co), "CR 56"/"RAP 2.5" (wa), "Ohio Civ. R. 56" (oh), "Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2" (pa), "R. 4:46-2"/"N.J.R.E. 403" (nj), "Md. Rule 2-501" (md), "I.R.C.P. 56" (id), "Conn. Practice Book § 23-8" (ct), "N.C. R. App. P. 10" (nc), "Cal. R. Ct. 8.204" (ca), "22 NYCRR 1250.1" (ny), "Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56" (tn), "Ga. Sup. Ct. R. 41" (ga). Rules are in-corpus for all 44 of: ak al ar az ca co ct dc de fl ga hi ia id il in ky ma md me mi mn mo ms mt nc nd ne nj nm nv ny oh or pa ri sc tn tx ut va wa wi wv wy. ks la nh ok sd vt keep no separate rules set — theirs are codified AS statutes ("S.D. Codified Laws § 15-6-10(a)", "K.S.A. 60-256"), and so are the Hawaii evidence rules ("Haw. Rev. Stat. § 626-1, Rule 403").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / as_of / description
      Previous value: -"Optional operative date, YYYY-MM-DD (offense, contract, accrual or filing date). When the section was amended or enacted after it, the answer leads with temporal_warning (severity amended_after | enacted_after | text_older_than_as_of | unknown_history), the history note and, when this corpus kept it, the prior text (prior_text_available); otherwise as_of_check says no later change is recorded."New value: +"Optional operative date, YYYY-MM-DD (offense, contract, accrual or filing date). When the section was amended or enacted after it, the answer leads with temporal_warning (severity amended_after | enacted_after | text_older_than_as_of | unknown_history), the history note and, when this corpus kept it, the prior text (prior_text_available); otherwise as_of_check says no later change is recorded. On or after a held successor version's operative date, as_of_version carries that version's text."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / as_of
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional operative date, YYYY-MM-DD (offense, contract, accrual or filing date). When the section was amended or enacted after it, the answer leads with temporal_warning (severity amended_after | enacted_after | text_older_than_as_of | unknown_history), the history note and, when this corpus kept it, the prior text (prior_text_available); otherwise as_of_check says no later change is recorded.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds rich behavior beyond them: temporal_warning leading the response for amended/enacted sections, status_warning with successor for repealed/renumbered sections, the currency.status enumeration, U.S. Code omission semantics, and CFR 'removed' handling with the eCFR point-in-time link. This is exactly the kind of edge-case disclosure the dimension rewards.

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?

It is front-loaded correctly, but it is a single dense paragraph of run-on sentences with repeated ALL-CAPS labels, and it redundantly re-explains as_of behavior already documented in the schema ('leads with temporal_warning... prior_text_available'). The content is largely justified given no output schema, but the structure and duplication keep it below a clean 4.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns — and it does so thoroughly (currency fields, temporal_note, warning types, status values, successor, as_of_version, CFR removal link). For a complex retrieval tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains what as_of triggers (temporal_warning FIRST, prior_text_available, as_of_version), and clarifies that a state's court rules live in the same corpus code, citing examples like 'CR 56' for WA. These add interpretive value, though much overlaps with the already-rich as_of schema text.

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?

The opening clause 'Fetch the full text of a statute, rule, or code section' gives a specific verb (fetch full text) and resource, and distinguishes the tool from search_statutes (search) and get_case (cases) by scope. An agent immediately understands this is a retrieve-by-citation tool.

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?

It gives strong conditional guidance ('For a crime, a contract, a limitations period or a procedural step, establish the operative date first and pass it as as_of'), which is clear workflow context. However, it never explicitly routes the agent to or away from siblings such as search_statutes or get_case, so it stops short of the 5-level when/when-not/alternatives standard.

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

All Syfert Legal Research 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