Skip to main content
Glama

Illinois Code

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Il Statute Search

il_statute_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Illinois Compiled Statutes BY TOPIC or keyword rather than citation — "currency exchange license fee", "concealed carry reciprocity", "landlord retaliation". Returns ranked sections with their citations; use il_compiled_statute afterward for the full text of one. Pass chapter + act (e.g. "225" + "155" for 225 ILCS 155) to scope the search to one act's own sections instead of ranking across all ~72,000 — use this when you already know which act the answer is in, so a term that is common across many acts still finds the right section. Full-text search, so it answers questions no citation lookup can. Keyless.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actNoOptional: act number within `chapter` to scope the search, e.g. "155" for 225 ILCS 155. Only that act's sections are searched.
limitNoMax results, default 10, max 25.
queryYesTopic or keywords, e.g. "currency exchange license fee". Can also name an act directly, e.g. "225 ILCS 155 civil penalty".
chapterNoOptional: ILCS chapter to scope the search to one act (pair with `act`), e.g. "225".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "query": "currency exchange license fee"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "currency exchange license fee"
+  },
+  {
+    "act": "155",
+    "chapter": "225",
+    "query": "civil penalty"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / act
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: act number within `chapter` to scope the search, e.g. \"155\" for 225 ILCS 155. Only that act's sections are searched.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / chapter
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: ILCS chapter to scope the search to one act (pair with `act`), e.g. \"225\".",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"Topic or keywords, e.g. \"currency exchange license fee\"."New value: +"Topic or keywords, e.g. \"currency exchange license fee\". Can also name an act directly, e.g. \"225 ILCS 155 civil penalty\"."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: ranked output with citations, a corpus size of ~72,000 sections, full-text semantics, and the fact that no API key is required. Pagination behavior and rate limits are not described, keeping it below a 5.

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-loaded with the core distinction and example queries, then the scoping rule, then the handoff to il_compiled_statute. Dense but purposeful; the single sentence explaining chapter + act is long but carries real decision value, so it is not waste.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return shape ('ranked sections with their citations'). Combined with the 100% schema coverage on inputs and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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, but the description adds meaning: it explains the pairing of chapter + act with a concrete example ('225' + '155') and the rationale (a term common across many acts still finds the right section). That goes beyond the schema's field-level notes.

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 ('Search Illinois Compiled Statutes') and immediately distinguishes the mode of access: by topic/keyword rather than citation. It also names the sibling il_compiled_statute for full text, so an agent can separate search from retrieval without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use the tool (topic/keyword questions, full-text answers no citation lookup can give) and when to use the scoped mode (pass chapter + act when you already know the act). It also routes full-text retrieval to il_compiled_statute afterward, covering the alternative tool case directly.

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

All Illinois 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