Skip to main content
Glama

Get Act Structure

get_act_structure
Read-only

The act's own shape: its chapters and parts where the publisher gives any, and the provisions under each.

Cost: 2 credits.

hasHierarchy is false for most acts and that is not an error: the publisher gives many acts no chapter or part divisions at all, and for those nodes is a flat list of sections. The free GET /acts/coverage publishes how many acts do carry a hierarchy, as depth.actsWithStructure.

Section numbers are sorted numerically with their alphabetic suffixes kept attached, so 498A follows 498 and 10 follows 2.

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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the 2-credit cost, the fact that hasHierarchy=false is normal (not an error), the flat nodes list for such acts, and the numeric sorting with alphabetic suffixes. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 well-structured with clear paragraphs, front-loading the core purpose. It includes necessary caveats (hasHierarchy, sorting) and a cost note without redundancy. The length is appropriate for the complexity, and each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the output schema exists (per context), the description need not explain return values. It covers cost, hierarchy behavior, sorting, and even references a related free endpoint for statistics. It is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret the result, with minor gaps like potential pagination not mentioned.

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 covers 100% of parameters (act_id) with a detailed description, including pattern, examples, and guidance on deriving the ID. The tool description does not add any extra parameter semantics, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 function: retrieving an act's internal structure (chapters, parts, provisions). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the tool name 'get_act_structure' aligns. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_act_section (single section) and get_act_text (full text) by focusing on the hierarchy shape.

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 gives clear context on when the tool is relevant (for any act) and explains the common hasHierarchy=false case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer usage. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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.