Skip to main content
Glama

Rettsarkiv

by no.rettsarkiv

Finn riktig lov

resolve_law
Read-only

Slå opp en lovs kanoniske lovdata-id fra korttittel/navn, UTGAVE-BEVISST.

VIKTIG: samme korttittel kan peke på ULIKE lover (utgaver) etter ikraft-dato, og
samme §-nummer betyr da ULIKE ting. Eksempel: straffeloven § 257 = menneskehandel
i 2005-loven (i kraft 2015-10-01), men tyveri i 1902-loven.

Oppgi `on_date` (YYYY-MM-DD) — typisk DOMSDATOEN — for å få utgaven som faktisk var
i kraft da. Uten `on_date` velges nyeste utgave og svaret merkes
`resolution='defaulted_newest'` + `ambiguous=true` når korttittelen er flertydig.

Returnerer ALLTID hele `editions`-lista med `valid_from`/`valid_to`/`text_loaded`
per utgave, et `resolution`-felt som forklarer HVORDAN den valgte, og et `warning`
når §-nummer kolliderer mellom utgaver. Ukjent utgave for datoen → `resolved=null`,
`resolution='unresolved_for_date'` — aldri et stille feil-treff. Bruk dette FØR
find_decisions_applying_law når loven kan være flertydig.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
on_dateNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Details return values including editions list, resolution field, warning, and behavior for unresolved cases. Consistent with readOnlyHint annotation as a safe lookup.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded, but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, though could be tightened.

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?

Complete for a complex tool with edition-awareness. Covers all return fields, edge cases (ambiguous, defaulted, unresolved), and no output schema needed as description suffices.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains both parameters: name as short title, on_date as date for edition resolution, with examples and fallback behavior.

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?

The description clearly states the tool resolves a law's canonical ID from a short title, being edition-aware. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_decisions_applying_law by specifying when to use this beforehand.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says to use this before find_decisions_applying_law when the law is ambiguous. Provides guidance on providing on_date (typically court date) and explains behavior without it.

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

All Rettsarkiv toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources