Skip to main content
Glama

Act Section Metadata

get_act_section
Read-only

Metadata for one provision, including its citation, position in the act, structural features and references. Use when identifying or inspecting a provision without fetching its wording. Text is not included. Use get_act_section_body to read it. wordCount covers all passages, and actsReferenced normalizes whitespace before deduplication so publisher line breaks do not create duplicate acts. Cost: 2 credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
act_idYesSection 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_numberYesSection number as the publisher writes it, e.g. `302` or `498A`; an alphanumeric suffix is part of the number, not a sub-provision. Near spellings (`498-A`, `Sec. 302`, `302(1)`) are tried when the exact one misses. A miss is a 404 with the act's nearest numbers in `didYouMean`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / section_number / description
      Previous value: -"Section number as the publisher writes it, e.g. `302` or `498A`. Alphanumeric suffixes are part of the number, not a sub-provision: `498A` is one section, not section 498 clause A.\n\nWhen the number as sent matches nothing, common spellings are tried: a `s.` / `Sec.` / `Section` prefix, `498-A` or `498 A` or `498a` for `498A`, and a trailing sub-provision such as `302(1)`, which serves the whole section. A match is served only when exactly one stored number fits, and the response carries `resolvedFrom`. A miss returns 404 with `reason` and the act's nearest numbers in `didYouMean`."New value: +"Section number as the publisher writes it, e.g. `302` or `498A`; an alphanumeric suffix is part of the number, not a sub-provision. Near spellings (`498-A`, `Sec. 302`, `302(1)`) are tried when the exact one misses. A miss is a 404 with the act's nearest numbers in `didYouMean`."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / act_id / pattern
      Previous value: -"^[a-zA-Z0-9_-]+$"New value: +"^[^/\\\\\\x00-\\x1f]+$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / section_number / description
      Previous value: -"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."New value: +"Section number as the publisher writes it, e.g. `302` or `498A`. Alphanumeric suffixes are part of the number, not a sub-provision: `498A` is one section, not section 498 clause A.\n\nWhen the number as sent matches nothing, common spellings are tried: a `s.` / `Sec.` / `Section` prefix, `498-A` or `498 A` or `498a` for `498A`, and a trailing sub-provision such as `302(1)`, which serves the whole section. A match is served only when exactly one stored number fits, and the response carries `resolvedFrom`. A miss returns 404 with `reason` and the act's nearest numbers in `didYouMean`."
    • changedInput schema / properties / section_number / pattern
      Previous value: -"^[A-Za-z0-9().\\- ]{1,40}$"New value: +"^[^/\\\\\\x00-\\x1f]{1,40}$"
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lowered. The description still adds value beyond them: it clarifies that text is excluded, documents field quirks (wordCount spans all passages, actsReferenced normalizes whitespace before dedup), and discloses a cost of 2 credits — real behavioral context. It stops short of error/auth behavior, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose and the sibling routing are front-loaded in the first three sentences. The wordCount/actsReferenced details are the densest part and could be trimmed, but they are grounded and earn their place better than most filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description nonetheless clarifies the one field nuance an agent might misread (dedup normalization). Combined with annotations and full param coverage, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters already carry rich guidance (id provenance, near-spelling fallback, didYouMean on miss). The description adds nothing param-specific beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Metadata for one provision' — and enumerates what the metadata includes (citation, position, structural features, references). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_act_section_body, so an agent can select it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit condition ('when identifying or inspecting a provision without fetching its wording') and names the alternative tool (get_act_section_body) with the reason to pick it for text. This is exactly the when-to-use/when-to-use-something-else routing the dimension rewards.

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.