Mississippi Code

Ms Code Section

ms_code_section

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the text of a section of the Mississippi Code of 1972 (Annotated) — Mississippi state law — by citation. "97-3-19" is homicide/murder; "89-8-19" is a landlord's duty to return a security deposit. Accepts natural forms: "97-3-19", "Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19", "Section 97-3-19", "§ 97-3-19". Returns the catchline, the operative statutory text, the legislative "HISTORY:" line, and amendment/cross-reference notes when present — case-law annotations are deliberately excluded (can run to hundreds of entries per section). IMPORTANT: this source is a static public-domain copy current only through Release 78 (2020-07-08) — it will NOT reflect any amendment enacted 2021 or later; check current_through on every response. Also returns later_acts: a dated, linked overlay of every act this pack found in Mississippi's own signed-bill text touching this exact citation since the 2020-07-08 snapshot (chapter number, session, bill link) — NOT merged into the text, explicitly labelled so, with sessions_checked naming every session the overlay covers even when later_acts is empty. Use for "what does MS 97-3-19 say" or to check a Mississippi statute AND whether it has been amended since 2020-07-08. 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": {
      "citation": "97-3-19"
    },
    "name": "ms_code_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`citation`	Yes	Section citation, e.g. "97-3-19" (homicide) or "89-8-19" (security deposits). Title-chapter-section, dot/hyphen separated.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond the annotations: discloses that the source is a static public-domain snapshot current only through Release 78 (2020-07-08), that later amendments are surfaced as a separate un-merged later_acts overlay, that case-law annotations are deliberately excluded, and that the agent must check current_through on every response. Annotations only cover read-only/idempotent safety; this description supplies the real operational caveats.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then staleness caveat, then return shape — a sensible order with essentially no filler. It is dense and parenthetical-heavy in a single block, so structure could be tightened, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and a keyless endpoint, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it explains the return fields (catchline, operative text, HISTORY line, cross-references), the deliberate exclusion of case-law annotations, and the stale-snapshot plus later_acts overlay model that an agent must understand to interpret results correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by listing accepted natural citation forms ("Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19", "Section 97-3-19", bare "97-3-19") and mapping concrete citations to their subject matter for sanity-checking input.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get the text of a section of the Mississippi Code of 1972 ... by citation.' The 'by citation' framing plus the concrete citation examples distinguish it from the sibling ms_code_search and ms_code_chapters without ambiguity about what is returned.

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?

Explicit trigger phrases are given: use it for "what does MS 97-3-19 say" or 'to check a Mississippi statute AND whether it has been amended since 2020-07-08.' It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name the alternative sibling (e.g., ms_code_search for keyword lookup), so it stops at clear context rather than 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 Mississippi 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.