Every section of a chapter with its text, in order, windowed by max_sections (default 40) and max_chars (default 100,000); the output ends with a pointer to continue or 'End of chapter.'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| chapter | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| max_sections | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable operational details: sections are returned in order, results are windowed by max_sections and max_chars, and the output signals continuation with a pointer or 'End of chapter.' This goes beyond the structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior, then adds windowing defaults and the termination signal. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the output shape, ordering, windowing, and continuation behavior, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it omits enough parameter semantics for title, chapter, and start, and provides no guidance on alternatives, leaving the definition adequate but not complete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter explanation. It explains max_sections and max_chars with defaults and implies start via the continuation pointer, but it does not clarify the meaning or format of title, chapter, or start. With 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (sections of a chapter) and the operation (returning their text in order), plus the windowing behavior. It does not use an explicit verb, and it does not name sibling tools, but 'every section of a chapter' distinguishes it from more targeted lookup tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for retrieving all sections of a chapter in sequence, which gives an agent a reasonable sense of when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over code_lookup_section, code_lookup_sections, or code_find_chapter, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a unique and clearly defined purpose, separated by collection (bills, code, opinions, constitution) and action (list, lookup, search, get_text, browse, etc.). No two tools overlap in functionality.
Tool names follow a consistent pattern of collection_action (e.g., bills_list, code_search, opinions_lookup) with snake_case and descriptive verbs. General tools use clear single-word names like search, fetch, and verify_quote.
With 23 tools, the set is slightly larger than the typical 3โ15 range, but it is appropriate for a comprehensive legal database covering multiple collections and specialized operations (browse, describe, find, verify). The count is justified by the domain's breadth.
The tool set covers all major legal collections (bills, code, constitution, opinions) with CRUD-like operations (list, lookup, search, get_text) and includes cross-cutting utilities (search, fetch, verify_quote, describe_site, get_coverage). No obvious gaps in the expected functionality.