Skip to main content
Glama

UK Legal Research

by io.github.paulieb89

Get Legislation Section

legislation_get_section
Read-onlyIdempotent

USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a known Act / SI and want the parsed text of a specific section, with extent and in-force metadata.

Returns full section text, territorial extent, in-force status, and prospective flag. Content capped per max_chars (default 10,000, ~2,500 tokens) — raise for unusually long definition sections; check content_truncated in the response.

ALWAYS check extent — a section may apply to England & Wales but not Scotland or Northern Ireland. Reciting a section without checking extent is a recurring legal-research error.

Alternative: call read_resource(uri="legislation://{type}/{year}/{number}/ section/{section}") for raw CLML XML; use this tool when you want the parsed structured response instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesLegislation type code: 'ukpga' (Acts), 'uksi' (SIs), 'asp' (Scottish Acts), 'nia' (NI Acts). Use the value from legislation_search results.
yearYesYear of enactment
numberYesChapter or SI number
sectionYesSection number, e.g. '47' or '12A'. Use the numeric part only — not 'section-47'. Schedules are not currently supported.
max_charsNoMaximum characters of section content to return. Default 10,000 (~2,500 tokens) covers almost every section. Raise to 50,000+ only for unusually long Finance Act definition sections. Check content_truncated in the response to see if it was cut.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesSection title or heading
extentNoTerritorial extent: list of 'England', 'Wales', 'Scotland', 'Northern Ireland'. Empty list means unknown — do not assume full UK extent.
contentYesPlain text content of the section, possibly truncated per max_chars. Check content_truncated and original_length for full-text information.
in_forceNoFalse if the section is explicitly marked repealed in CLML. True only when an InForce element is present in the section body (rare). Null for most sections — the data.xml endpoint does not carry a per-section current in-force boolean; null does not mean repealed.
warningsNoNon-fatal retrieval or parsing warnings the caller should disclose where relevant.
prospectiveNoTrue if this section has not yet come into force; None if unknown
version_dateNoDate of the version retrieved
source_formatNoSource parsed for this response. html_fallback means CLML XML was unavailable and text was parsed from the public HTML page.xml
section_numberYesSection number, e.g. '47', '12A', 'Schedule 2'
original_lengthNoOriginal plain-text length in characters before any truncation
content_truncatedNoTrue if content was cut to fit max_chars

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: content truncation via max_chars, the content_truncated response field, and the extent-check warning. It also mentions the 'prospective flag' as an output trait, so the agent knows what to expect.

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 front-loaded with a bolded 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' and organized into clear paragraphs. It is somewhat wordier than necessary (e.g., repeating default token count), but every section serves a distinct purpose—purpose, return details, warning, alternative—making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description is complete for a read tool with an output schema: it covers the intended use case, key output fields (extent, in-force, prospective flag), truncation behavior, a critical legal-research caution, and an explicit alternative. It also tells the user to get type/year/number from legislation_search, which is helpful. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for every parameter, including max_chars default and guidance to check content_truncated. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, mostly reiterating the max_chars behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a known Act / SI and want the parsed text of a specific section, with extent and in-force metadata.' This specific verb+resource+outcome distinguishes it from siblings like legislation_get_toc and read_resource, and it explicitly contrasts with the raw XML alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: when to use the tool ('when you have a known Act / SI'), what to check ('ALWAYS check extent'), and names the alternative ('call read_resource(uri=...) for raw CLML XML'). This is a clear when/when-not with alternatives.

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

All UK Legal Research 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent ambiguity. Tools covering similar domains (e.g., multiple parliament search tools) are carefully differentiated by their search approach and input requirements.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., bills_get_bill, case_law_search, citations_resolve). Even generic tools adhere to this style. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

With 35 tools, the count is on the higher side but appropriate for the wide-ranging domain of UK legal research. Each tool contributes to specific sub-domains (bills, case law, citations, committees, HMRC, legislation, parliament, votes) without unnecessary duplication.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers nearly all essential aspects of UK legal research: searching and retrieving bills, case law, and legislation; parsing and resolving citations; exploring committee evidence; accessing Hansard debates and member interests; and checking HMRC guidance and VAT rates. Gaps like full judgment text retrieval are mitigated by paragraph-level access and indexing.

Resources