Skip to main content
Glama

Nv Revised Statute

nv_revised_statute
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the Nevada Revised Statutes — Nevada state law — by citation. "NRS 200.010" defines murder. Returns the statutory text. Keyless. Use for "what does NRS 484C.110 say" or to check a Nevada 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": "200.010"
    },
    "name": "nv_revised_statute"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sectionYesSection as cited, e.g. "200.010" (murder) or "484C.110" (DUI). Chapter is the part before the dot.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world semantics, and the description still adds useful context: 'Keyless' (no auth setup required) and 'Returns the statutory text' (shape of the response). It stops short of describing behavior on an invalid or non-existent citation.

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 the core action and scope, and the supporting example/sibling-use sentences are short. Slightly redundant between the murder example in the description and the schema's own examples, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations needs little more; the description supplies the citation convention, the return content, and the auth posture. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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. The description goes further by showing the 'NRS 200.010' citation convention inline and the schema clarifies chapter/section structure, adding real meaning about accepted input 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 Nevada Revised Statutes') plus the input form ('by citation'). The example citation and returned payload make the operation unmistakable, and no sibling tool does anything comparable.

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 queries ('what does NRS 484C.110 say') and the secondary use case of verifying a statute a case relies on. It doesn't name alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps, so this is close to sufficient.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.