Skip to main content
Glama

Vaquill

by io.github.Vaquill-AI
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Resolve India Citation

resolve_india_citation
Read-only

Turn a citation a lawyer would type into the provision it names.

Cost: 2 credits. A malformed citation is a 422 and is NOT charged. Every other outcome is, including not_found: a confident negative is the answer.

Accepts what Indian practice actually writes, not what a style guide prescribes. Three published standards exist and they disagree about element order, while the most common real form, u/s 302 IPC, appears in none of them. So order does not matter, and all of these work:

u/s 302 IPC
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
s.302 IPC
S. 376(2)(g), IPC
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 302 IPC
O. 39 R. 1 CPC
Art. 21 of the Constitution
Regulation 24 of the SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015
Maharashtra Act No. LXXVII of 2018

šŸ”“ Read status before reading candidates. ambiguous is a real answer and it is charged, because narrowing a citation to two named enactments is the work. The commonest cause is the 2023 recodification: after 1 July 2024, s. 302 names both IPC 302 (murder) and BNS 302 (uttering words to wound religious feelings), while BNS 103 is murder. Both codes are live law simultaneously for the lifetime of pending trials, so this endpoint will not choose for you. Send asAtDate and it will.

r/w ("read with") is split into separate citations and each is resolved.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
citeYesOne citation string.
stateNoNarrow to one jurisdiction. Required for a State-universal title, where the same short title names a different act in each State.
asAtDateNoThe date the conduct or document belongs to, as YYYY-MM-DD. This is how a caller says which side of the 2023 recodification they mean: without it, a criminal section number resolves to BOTH the old code and its replacement, because both are live law.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / asAtDate / description
      Previous value: -"Which side of the 2023 recodification you mean, as YYYY-MM-DD."New value: +"The date the conduct or document belongs to, as YYYY-MM-DD. This is how a caller says which side of the 2023 recodification they mean: without it, a criminal section number resolves to BOTH the old code and its replacement, because both are live law."
    • addedInput schema / properties / asAtDate / format
      Added value: +"date"
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"Narrow to one jurisdiction."New value: +"Narrow to one jurisdiction. Required for a State-universal title, where the same short title names a different act in each State."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already mark the tool as read-only, the description adds important behavioral disclosure beyond that: 'Read `status` before reading `candidates`', ambiguous answers are charged, malformed citations return 422 and are not charged, and r/w citations are split. It also explains why ambiguity may be intentional due to the 2023 recodification.

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?

The description is long but every section earns its place: a one-sentence purpose, cost and charging behavior, accepted-form flexibility with concrete examples, the critical status-then-candidates warning, and the recodification explanation. The structure is front-loaded and scannable despite the dense material.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential operational concerns: costs, failure modes, ambiguity, jurisdiction/date disambiguation, and r/w handling. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic context: it explains that element order does not matter despite style-guide disagreements, shows multiple accepted forms for `cite`, and clarifies how `asAtDate` resolves post-recoodification ambiguity. The `state` parameter is not expanded in prose, but the schema already describes it 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?

The description begins with a precise verb and object: 'Turn a citation a lawyer would type into the provision it names.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the batch sibling by focusing on a single citation. It also conveys the real-world flexibility of accepted input forms.

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 strong usage context: order does not matter, examples show accepted formats, and callers are told to send `asAtDate` when ambiguity exists. It does not explicitly contrast this singular tool with `resolve_india_citations_batch`, so the when-to-use versus alternative guidance is slightly incomplete.

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
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.

Resources