Minnesota Code

Mn Statute

mn_statute

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the Minnesota Statutes — Minnesota state law — by citation. "Minn. Stat. 609.185" is first degree murder. Returns the statutory text. Keyless. Use for "what does Minn. Stat. 609.185 say" or to check a statute a case relies on.

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": {
      "section": "609.185"
    },
    "name": "mn_statute"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`section`	Yes	Section as cited, e.g. "609.185" (murder 1) or "169A.20" (DWI).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds information the annotations do not: 'Keyless' (no auth/API key required) and 'Returns the statutory text', which tells the agent what comes back. Missing: behavior on an invalid or unresolvable citation.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and every sentence carries weight: verb+resource first, then an example, then return content, then usage triggers. 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?

A single-parameter, read-only lookup with rich annotations and a stated return type needs little more; the description covers purpose, input form, and output content. The only gap is failure behavior for citations that don't resolve.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents 'section' with two examples, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that a full citation form ('Minn. Stat. 609.185') is acceptable input, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema's bare '609.185' form.

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 ('Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the Minnesota Statutes') plus the lookup key ('by citation') and an inline example. No sibling tool operates on statutes, so the agent can route here unambiguously.

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 concrete triggering phrasings ('what does Minn. Stat. 609.185 say') and a secondary use case ('check a statute a case relies on'). No explicit when-not-use or named alternative, but the context is clear enough to select the tool.

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

All Minnesota 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.