Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Georgia Code

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Ga Code Section

ga_code_section
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a section of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) — Georgia state law — by citation. "16-5-1" is murder; "44-7-34" is the security-deposit-return statute. Accepts natural citation forms: "16-5-1", "O.C.G.A. § 16-5-1", "Ga. Code Ann. § 16-5-1", "Code Section 16-5-1", "Title 16, Chapter 5, Section 1". Returns the current statutory text, status (active/repealed/reserved), the legislative/amendment history (the Acts that enacted and amended it), editor's notes and cross references, and every stored historical version when a section has more than one (e.g. a delayed effective date). Keyless. Use for "what does O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 say" or to check a Georgia statute a case or contract relies on.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "citation": "16-5-1"
    },
    "name": "ga_code_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
citationYesSection citation, e.g. "16-5-1" or "O.C.G.A. § 44-7-34". Title-chapter-section; the title is the part before the first dash.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so this clears the lower bar comfortably by adding real operational context: 'Keyless' (no auth required) and the fact that it can return every stored historical version when a section has multiple. That is genuine disclosure beyond what the annotations declare.

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 purpose and resource in the first clause, then moves to examples and return contents. The citation examples are a touch repetitive, but each sentence carries useful information, so it earns most of its length.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly: statutory text, status (active/repealed/reserved), legislative and amendment history, editor's notes, cross references, and historical versions. Combined with the keyless note and input formats, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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% and only one parameter exists, so the baseline is already 3. The description nonetheless adds value the schema does not: it enumerates the accepted citation forms (bare '16-5-1', 'O.C.G.A. §', 'Ga. Code Ann. §', 'Code Section', and 'Title 16, Chapter 5, Section 1'), reducing the risk of malformed input.

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 ('Get') and resource (a section of the O.C.G.A.), and pins down scope precisely: Georgia state law, retrieved by citation. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling ga_code_search, which by contrast implies lookup/search rather than a single-section fetch.

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 usage contexts — 'Use for "what does O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 say" or to check a Georgia statute a case or contract relies on' — which tells the agent when this is the right tool. It stops short of explicitly naming ga_code_search as the alternative for keyword/lookup queries, so no full when-not/alternative mapping.

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

All Georgia Code 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