Skip to main content
Glama

Vaquill

by io.github.Vaquill-AI

Get Act Text

get_act_text
Read-only

Source links for one enactment: the plain-text, PDF and HTML renderings, plus how many sections it holds. Use when the user wants to read or cite the Act itself rather than a matched section. 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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral context: exact credit cost and the form of the return data. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core output is front-loaded, followed by the usage condition and cost information.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with a detailed input schema and an output schema, the definition fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool returns, when to call it, and its cost. The matched-section contrast provides enough routing guidance.

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 tool description itself adds no act_id detail, but the input schema already covers 100% of the parameter and includes a rich description with an example and guidance to take IDs from search results. 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 outcome: source links (plain-text, PDF, HTML renderings) and section count for one enactment. It explicitly distinguishes the Act itself from a matched section, which differentiates it from section-oriented siblings.

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?

Provides a clear usage condition: use when the user wants to read or cite the Act itself rather than a matched section. It implies when not to use section-level tools, though it does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly.

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

All Vaquill toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_acts does section-level text search, list_acts browses filters, get_act_text retrieves source links, and get_act_amendments covers legislative history. A few overlapping pairs exist (search vs search_acts, fetch vs get_act_text), but the descriptions explicitly steer callers toward the preferred tool, reducing real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow a predictable get_/list_/search_ pattern, with get_act_text, get_act_amendments, list_acts, list_act_filters, and search_acts being clear and consistent. The bare names fetch and search are minor deviations, though they serve as standard compatibility hooks rather than random exceptions.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped count for an Indian legislation research server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the workflow: searching, browsing, filtering, retrieving text, checking amendments, and mapping repealed codes, with no unnecessary bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the core research lifecycle end to end: discover what exists (list_acts), understand filter vocabulary (list_act_filters), search sections (search_acts), retrieve source text (get_act_text), check amendments (get_act_amendments), and translate repealed provisions to current law (get_corresponding_provisions). The only noted gap, the IEA/BSA mapping, is explicitly flagged as not yet available rather than silently missing.

Resources