UK Business Tools - Ledgerhall

Get Legislation Section

law_legislation_get_section

Read-onlyIdempotent

USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a known Act / SI and want the parsed text of a specific section, with extent and in-force metadata.

Returns full section text, territorial extent, in-force status, and prospective flag. Content capped per max_chars (default 10,000, ~2,500 tokens) — raise for unusually long definition sections; check content_truncated in the response.

ALWAYS check extent — a section may apply to England & Wales but not Scotland or Northern Ireland. Reciting a section without checking extent is a recurring legal-research error.

Alternative: call read_resource(uri="legislation://{type}/{year}/{number}/ section/{section}") for raw CLML XML; use this tool when you want the parsed structured response instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	Legislation type code: 'ukpga' (Acts), 'uksi' (SIs), 'asp' (Scottish Acts), 'nia' (NI Acts). Use the value from legislation_search results.
`year`	Yes	Year of enactment
`number`	Yes	Chapter or SI number
`section`	Yes	Section number, e.g. '47' or '12A'. Use the numeric part only — not 'section-47'. Schedules are not currently supported.
`max_chars`	No	Maximum characters of section content to return. Default 10,000 (~2,500 tokens) covers almost every section. Raise to 50,000+ only for unusually long Finance Act definition sections. Check content_truncated in the response to see if it was cut.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes	Section title or heading
`extent`	No	Territorial extent: list of 'England', 'Wales', 'Scotland', 'Northern Ireland'. Empty list means unknown — do not assume full UK extent.
`content`	Yes	Plain text content of the section, possibly truncated per max_chars. Check content_truncated and original_length for full-text information.
`in_force`	No	False if the section is explicitly marked repealed in CLML. True only when an InForce element is present in the section body (rare). Null for most sections — the data.xml endpoint does not carry a per-section current in-force boolean; null does not mean repealed.
`warnings`	No	Non-fatal retrieval or parsing warnings the caller should disclose where relevant.
`prospective`	No	True if this section has not yet come into force; None if unknown
`version_date`	No	Date of the version retrieved
`source_format`	No	Source parsed for this response. html_fallback means CLML XML was unavailable and text was parsed from the public HTML page.	xml
`section_number`	Yes	Section number, e.g. '47', '12A', 'Schedule 2'
`original_length`	No	Original plain-text length in characters before any truncation
`content_truncated`	No	True if content was cut to fit max_chars

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond annotations: content truncation via max_chars, the need to check content_truncated, and the warning about extent applicability. These are not visible from the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, and the description proactively warns about a common legal-research error. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with an immediate use-case directive, followed by return-value details, truncation warning, extent caution, and an alternative. Every sentence serves a purpose; the content is dense yet readable, and the key usage instruction is front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate all return fields, but it covers the essential return components (text, extent, in-force status, prospective flag), the truncation mechanism, and the alternative tool. It is complete for a moderately complex tool with 5 parameters and rich annotations.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the max_chars parameter's practical use (raising for long definition sections, checking content_truncated) and clarifying the default token estimate. It does not describe the path parameters, but the schema already does this comprehensively.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving parsed text of a specific legislation section with extent and in-force metadata. It distinguishes itself from law_read_resource by explicitly positioning this tool as the parsed structured response alternative to raw XML, which also differentiates it from sibling tools like law_legislation_get_toc.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use ('USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a known Act / SI and want the parsed text of a specific section') and provides a named alternative (read_resource for raw CLML XML). It also includes a critical usage reminder to check extent, which adds practical guidance beyond simple triggering.

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

All UK Business Tools - Ledgerhall tools Inspect

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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are well-grouped by domain prefixes (dd_, gov_, law_, prop_) with clear descriptions that differentiate them. However, there is minor overlap, e.g., dd_search could be used instead of individual searches, and dd_fetch versus dedicated profile tools might cause confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with domain-specific prefixes (dd_, gov_, law_, prop_). Names are descriptive and predictable, e.g., dd_charity_search, gov_govuk_search, law_bills_search_bills.

Tool Count4/5

70 tools is high but justified by the broad scope covering due diligence, government, legal, and property domains. Each domain has a reasonable number of tools (about 15-20 each). The count is on the upper end but still manageable.

Completeness5/5

The tool set is comprehensive across all domains: full CRUD for companies and charities, detailed legal research (cases, legislation, parliament, citations), property data (EPC, planning, price paid, rentals), and government information. No obvious gaps for the intended use cases.

Resources

Need Help?