Michigan Code

Mi Admin Rule Search

mi_admin_rule_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Full-text search over the Michigan Administrative Code rule sets this pack has indexed (see mi_admin_rule). Use for "what Michigan rule covers X" when the exact citation is unknown, e.g. {query: "medication administration child caring institution"}. Searches rule headings and body text; returns matching citations with a snippet. Keyless.

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": {
      "limit": 5,
      "query": "medication administration child caring institution"
    },
    "name": "mi_admin_rule_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max results (default 10, max 25).
`query`	Yes	Words to search for, e.g. "medication storage" or "staff-to-resident ratio".

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Present when returned is 0.
`found`	No	False only when no rule set has a stored copy available.
`query`	No
`reason`	No
`source`	No
`message`	No
`results`	No
`returned`	No
`data_as_of`	No
`attribution`	No
`rule_sets_covered`	No
`rule_sets_searched`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, it discloses what is searched (headings plus body text), what comes back (matching citations with a snippet), and that access is keyless — a genuinely useful auth detail. It stops short of noting result ordering or what happens when nothing matches, but the substantive behavioral gaps are covered.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the use case, then the return shape. Nothing is repeated from the name or title and no sentence is filler.

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?

For a two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete safety annotations, the description supplies everything the agent needs: scope, routing, query intent, and returned fields. No material gap remains.

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 both query and limit are already documented with their own examples and the default/max bounds. The description's worked example reinforces that query is free-text keyword phrasing, but adds no syntax or ranking semantics beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Full-text search over the Michigan Administrative Code rule sets this pack has indexed') and explicitly scopes it relative to the sibling mi_admin_rule, which is a citation lookup. An agent can distinguish search-by-topic from fetch-by-citation 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: use for 'what Michigan rule covers X' when the exact citation is unknown, and points at mi_admin_rule as the related tool. It never states the inverse rule ('use mi_admin_rule when you do have a citation') in so many words, so the routing is strongly implied rather than fully spelled out.

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

All Michigan Code 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.