Skip to main content
Glama

Read a law article

well_get_law_article
Read-only

Read one law text by its source_id, as it stood on as_of: a LEGI article, a BOFiP document or a Service-Public.fr fiche for France; a United States Code section, an eCFR section, a Federal Register document, a GovInfo edition or an IRS publication for the United States.

A long text is stored in parts. Part 1 has the text's own source_id, and part k has <source_id>#k. When the part you read does not hold the rule, search again with the rule's words, or read the next part.

The result gives the version in force on that day, with its validity and dates, and the dates of the other versions of the text. validity: "unknown" means the source gives no in-force dates; observed_from is only the day the source published the text. end_unknown means the source says the text ends or has ended but gives no end date.

Omit as_of for the latest verified day. On beyond_coverage, say the stored law is verified only through covered_through, and ask again with an as_of on or before it. On no_version_on_date, name the dates of the other versions. This is not legal advice.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source_id": "<source_id>"
    },
    "name": "well_get_law_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNoThe day the text must be in force on. Omit for the latest verified day.
source_idYesThe source_id of a law hit, or of a citation.
workspace_idNoTarget workspace. Optional: this tool describes the token itself rather than one workspace's data, so omitting it returns the same answer.
conversation_idNoThe conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.
workspace_scopeNoRestrict this call to the family: the token's primary workspace plus the company workspaces under it that you are a member of. Unrelated authorized workspaces drop out of the read; row reads merge across the family, while a per-workspace figure still reports exactly one workspace.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNo
statusYes
articleNo
messageNo
refusalNo
successYes
coverageNo
other_versionsNo
conversation_idNoThe conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.
newly_connectedNoTools that connected to this workspace since the last result and that no session was told about yet, oldest first. Present only when at least one tool is new. The connected-line rule says when to tell an entry; when it does, one line per entry, in the person's language: "<name> is connected.". Never fold several entries into one sentence. Each entry comes back once, on one result only: never repeat its line later.
conversation_id_noteNoPresent only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.
other_versions_totalNo
conversation_id_sourceNoWhere the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare a safe, closed-world read; the description goes much further by disclosing the part-numbering scheme (`<source_id>#k`), the version-in-force semantics, what `validity: "unknown"` and `end_unknown` mean, and the two error states `beyond_coverage` (with `covered_through`) and `no_version_on_date`. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to 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?

Front-loads the core action and constraint in the first sentence, then moves to parts, version semantics, and error handling in a logical order. It is dense and slightly long, with the jurisdiction list taking significant space, but nearly every sentence carries operational value.

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-shape explanation isn't required, yet the description still covers the tricky parts: pagination across parts, validity-date ambiguity, coverage boundaries, and recovery paths for both error codes. Nothing essential to calling this correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3; the description earns extra by explaining the `<source_id>#k` part convention and what `as_of` means semantically (the version in force that day, not publication date). It says nothing about `workspace_id`, `conversation_id` or `workspace_scope`, leaving those to the schema.

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 and resource — 'Read one law text by its `source_id`, as it stood on `as_of`' — and enumerates the covered corpora (LEGI, BOFiP, Service-Public.fr; USC, eCFR, Federal Register, GovInfo, IRS). This clearly separates it from the retrieval/discovery sibling well_search_law, since it operates on an identifier produced by a hit or citation.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context: pass a `source_id` from a law hit or citation, omit `as_of` for the latest verified day, and fall back to searching 'with the rule's words' when a part doesn't contain the rule. It does not name well_search_law explicitly as the alternative, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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.

Resources