Indiana Court Rules

In Local Rules

in_local_rules

Read-onlyIdempotent

Text of an Indiana county's local court rules (circuit/superior court rules, district governance plan, city-court rules). Given a county (e.g. "Johnson"), returns the county's documents and the rule text: pass query for a keyword search across the county's rules ("motion practice", "bond", "court reporter"), rule for one citation as the county numbers it ("LR41-TR-102"), or neither to read the document from the start (paginate with offset). Covers 91 of 92 counties; a document with no machine-readable text, or a county with no published rules, says so and returns the document link rather than an empty answer. With no county, returns every county with its coverage. Every response carries data_as_of. Source: Indiana Supreme Court, Indiana Judicial Branch, local court rules by county.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rule`	No	A rule citation as the county numbers it, e.g. "LR41-TR-102". Returns that rule's text.
`query`	No	Keywords to find in the county's local rules, e.g. "motion for continuance". Returns the best-matching passages.
`county`	No	Indiana county name, with or without "County", e.g. "Johnson", "St. Joseph". Omit to list counties and coverage.
`offset`	No	Character offset when reading a document from the start.
`document`	No	1-based document number from the documents list, to restrict to one document.
`max_chars`	No	Maximum characters of rule text to return (500-20000, default 6000).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`county`	No
`source`	No
`documents`	No
`page_title`	No
`county_page`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedOct 27, 2026

changedInput schema / examples

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "county": "Johnson"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "county": "Johnson",
+    "query": "filing motions"
+  }
+]

changedInput schema / properties / county / description

Previous value: -"Indiana county name, with or without \"County\", e.g. \"Johnson\", \"St. Joseph\". Omit to list counties."New value: +"Indiana county name, with or without \"County\", e.g. \"Johnson\", \"St. Joseph\". Omit to list counties and coverage."

addedInput schema / properties / document

Added value: +{
+  "description": "1-based document number from the documents list, to restrict to one document.",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / max_chars

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Maximum characters of rule text to return (500-20000, default 6000).",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / offset

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Character offset when reading a document from the start.",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / query

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Keywords to find in the county's local rules, e.g. \"motion for continuance\". Returns the best-matching passages.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / rule

Added value: +{
+  "description": "A rule citation as the county numbers it, e.g. \"LR41-TR-102\". Returns that rule's text.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value: 91-of-92-county coverage, the explicit fallback for documents with no machine-readable text (returns the document link rather than an empty answer), and that every response carries data_as_of. Pagination behavior is only implied via offset/max_chars defaults.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the mode selection, then coverage caveats. Dense but every clause carries information; the source attribution sentence is the only slight padding.

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-value structure needn't be described; the description covers what an agent actually needs — coverage limits, the no-text fallback, freshness signal (data_as_of), and pagination. Nothing material 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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond per-parameter definitions to explain the interaction between parameters (query vs rule vs neither) and the county-omitted mode. The document parameter is only covered by the schema, not the prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (Indiana county local court rules) and the content types covered (circuit/superior, district governance plan, city-court rules). It never names the closely related siblings in_court_rule or in_court_rules_list, so an agent must infer the county-vs-statewide distinction from the name alone.

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 explicit routing rules inside the tool: use query for keyword search, rule for a citation, neither to read from the start with offset. It also explains that omitting county lists all counties with coverage. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over the sibling statewide court-rule tools.

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.