Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Louisiana Code

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Louisiana Title Contents

louisiana_title_contents
Read-onlyIdempotent

List every section in one TITLE of the Louisiana Revised Statutes with its heading and doc_id — Title 14 Criminal Law, Title 32 Motor Vehicles, Title 47 Revenue and Taxation, Title 9 Civil Code Ancillaries — optionally filtered by a word in the heading, so an agent can find the right section when a keyword search is too broad ("every section of Title 14 with 'homicide' in its heading"). Repealed sections are flagged. Keyless; sourced live from the Louisiana State Legislature's table of contents.

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": {
      "title": "14",
      "filter": "homicide"
    },
    "name": "louisiana_title_contents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax sections to return, default 50, max 200.
titleYesRevised Statutes title number, e.g. "14" (Criminal Law), "32" (Motor Vehicles), "47" (Revenue and Taxation).
filterNoOptional case-insensitive substring to match in the section heading or citation, e.g. "homicide".
offsetNoSkip this many matching sections, default 0 — for paging through a large title.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds value beyond them: repealed sections are flagged in results, the tool is keyless (no auth setup), and data is sourced live from the Legislature's table of contents — all useful operational context an agent can't get from the annotation block.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the action and resource, then layers scope, filter, use case, and provenance. The inline title list is slightly verbose but earns its place by mapping numbers to subject areas. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses what comes back (section headings and doc_id) and a result-level subtlety (repealed flags). Pagination is covered by the schema. Only minor gap is not stating ordering or total-count behavior, which is low-impact for a listing tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including limit defaults/max, title examples, filter semantics, and offset paging. The description only restates the filter concept with an example already present in the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 — 'List every section in one TITLE of the Louisiana Revised Statutes' — and enumerates concrete title examples (14 Criminal Law, 32 Motor Vehicles). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling louisiana_law_search / louisiana_statute by being a title-level table-of-contents enumeration rather than a keyword or single-statute lookup.

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?

Explicitly frames the when-to-use: 'when a keyword search is too broad,' with a worked example ('every section of Title 14 with homicide in its heading'). It implies rather than names the alternative sibling tool, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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

All Louisiana 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