Vaquill

Get Act Section

get_act_section

Read-only

A single provision with its citation, its position in the act, the structural features its text carries, and what it points at.

Cost: 2 credits.

This does not return the provision's text. GET /acts/{actId}/sections/{n}/body does, and is priced separately because it reads the act document.

wordCount is summed across every passage of the provision. actsReferenced is whitespace-normalised before deduplication, because the publisher's line breaks otherwise make one cited act look like two.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`act_id`	Yes	Section identifier, e.g. `USC_T42_C21_S1983` (Title 42, Chapter 21, Section 1983, written 42 U.S.C. 1983). Take it from a search result rather than assembling it: the title and section are derivable from a citation but the CHAPTER is not, so hand-built ids usually 404.
`section_number`	Yes	Section number exactly as the publisher writes it. Alphanumeric suffixes are part of the number, not a sub-provision: `498A` is one section, not section 498 clause A.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating it does not mutate. It adds behavioral details beyond annotations: the credit cost, the fact that wordCount sums across passages, and that actsReferenced is whitespace-normalized before deduplication. No contradiction exists.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose, then cost, then what it does not do, then two specific output nuances. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has an output schema, the description need not restate return values. It explains the two key output field nuances (wordCount and actsReferenced), provides pricing, and directs to the text endpoint. It covers all necessary context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters, including patterns, examples, and warnings about hand-assembling IDs. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; it focuses on output behavior and cost. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns 'a single provision with its citation, its position in the act, the structural features its text carries, and what it points at.' It explicitly distinguishes from get_act_section_body by noting it does not return the provision's text, which separates it from that sibling. The purpose is specific and non-tautological.

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?

The description explicitly directs the agent to an alternative for text retrieval: 'GET /acts/{actId}/sections/{n}/body does, and is priced separately because it reads the act document.' It also clarifies cost (2 credits) and explains why the alternative is priced differently. This is clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling.

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

All Vaquill tools Inspect

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.