Indiana Court Rules

In Court Rule

in_court_rule

Read-onlyIdempotent

Full text of one Indiana statewide court rule by citation, e.g. Trial Rule 60 (set "trial", rule "60"), Appellate Rule 9, Evidence Rule 401, Criminal Rule 2.1, Professional Conduct 1.6. Returns the rule heading, effective date, text, and the published version history where one exists. Add a subdivision like "60(B)" to also get just that part. Source: Indiana Supreme Court, Indiana Rules of Court. Not the Indiana Code (use indiana-code) and not county local rules (use in_local_rules).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`set`	Yes	Rule set: trial, appellate, evidence, criminal, admission-discipline, prof-conduct, small-claims, judicial-conduct, admin, adr, jury, tax, records, and others. Common names like "trial rules" or "professional conduct" also work. See in_court_rules_list.
`rule`	Yes	Rule number as cited: "60", "60(B)", "4.1", "401", "1.6". Decimals use a dot.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`set`	No
`link`	No
`rule`	No
`text`	No
`found`	No
`source`	No
`heading`	No
`effective`	No
`subdivision`	No
`rule_set_name`	No
`version_history`	No
`subdivision_requested`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is clear. The description adds valuable context: what the response includes (rule heading, effective date, text, version history) and the authoritative source. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication, but those are likely unnecessary for a public read-only tool.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by examples and exclusions in a logical order. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it still provides a helpful summary. Annotations cover safety, parameters are fully described, and alternatives are named. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 parameters are well documented. The description adds extra mapping by giving concrete examples (e.g., set "trial", rule "60") and clarifies that adding a subdivision like "60(B)" returns just that part. This helps the agent map citations to parameter values beyond the schema's already clear descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Full text of one Indiana statewide court rule') and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by naming 'indiana-code' and 'in_local_rules' as alternatives. An agent can immediately tell this is the tool for retrieving Indiana court rule text.

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?

It provides examples of citations (Trial Rule 60, Appellate Rule 9, etc.), explains how to specify subdivisions, and explicitly says what it is not for, naming the correct alternatives. Usage conditions and exclusions are fully covered.

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

All Indiana Court Rules tools Inspect

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.