Vaquill

Get Act Status

get_act_status

Read-only

Everything we know about an act's standing, kept in three separate vocabularies that are deliberately never collapsed into one verdict.

Cost: 1 credit.

publisherStatus is act_status exactly as India Code records it. Their word.
servedStatus is ours: whether this API answers for the act, or has retired it as withdrawn by the publisher or as a duplicate of one we kept.
repealClaim is the publisher's repeal record WITH its source, and with the caveat that we do not verify whether the repealing instrument was itself brought into force.

That last distinction is not pedantry. India Code lists the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as repealed by Act 37 of 2020, the Industrial Relations Code, which has never been commenced. Serving that as flatly "repealed" would be wrong, so this endpoint does not.

A retired act answers here with servedStatus: retired and the reason, rather than 404ing, because "we deliberately withdrew this" is a more useful answer than "no such thing".

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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description is transparent about semantic caveats: it does not verify whether a repealing instrument was commenced, and it deliberately returns retired acts rather than 404ing. Combined with readOnlyHint, the behavior is well disclosed.

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 description is longer than average, but nearly every sentence carries meaningful nuance. The Industrial Disputes example is illustrative rather than padding, though it could be tightened without losing value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description explains the main status categories and the retired behavior clearly. It does not fully enumerate the complete response shape, but it provides enough context for the primary use case and the available output schema is noted.

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?

The act_id parameter is fully described in the schema with an example, format, length, and a practical warning to take IDs from search results rather than constructing them. The tool description adds no further parameter detail, but the schema coverage is strong.

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 name and description make the purpose unmistakable: retrieve the standing/status of an act. The description also contrasts this endpoint with a plain fetch by explaining that retired acts are returned with a reason rather than 404ing.

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?

The description explains when this endpoint is the right choice, especially the retired-act behavior, and the parameter guidance warns against hand-building IDs. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid, but the use case is clear enough.

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.