Skip to main content
Glama

Act Section Text

get_act_section_body
Read-only

The publisher's full text for one provision, taken directly from the act document without synthesized search headers. Use when reading, quoting or citing the provision's wording rather than its metadata. Amendments are not applied to this text. Check get_section_history for recorded changes before treating the wording as current law. Cost: 3 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds material context beyond that: the text is unamended, it lacks synthesized search headers, it may not reflect current law, and it costs 3 credits. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to avoid misusing the wording.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage, the amendments caveat, the sibling pointer, and cost. No sentence is redundant; each adds a distinct fact.

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-value explanation is unnecessary. The description otherwise covers purpose, selection criteria, correctness caveats, and cost – everything needed to invoke this read-only tool appropriately.

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 parameter descriptions are unusually rich (id construction pitfalls, 404/didYouMean behavior, suffix rules). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies – the schema carries this dimension fully.

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+resource ('full text for one provision') and clarifies scope ('taken directly from the act document without synthesized search headers'). This distinguishes it from sibling get_act_section (metadata-oriented) and get_section_history without requiring the agent to open the 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('reading, quoting or citing the provision's wording rather than its metadata') and when to consult an alternative ('Check get_section_history for recorded changes before treating the wording as current law'). Names the sibling and the condition that routes to it.

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.