Several sections at once: a list ('44-7-30, 44-7-31 and 44-7-34') or a range ('44-7-30 through 44-7-35'), up to 40 sections under a 150,000-character cap, with a trailer naming anything not rendered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| citations | Yes |
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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral details: the 40-section and 150,000-character caps, and the trailer that names anything not rendered. These go beyond the annotation metadata.
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?
One dense sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Several sections at once'), then packs examples, limits, and trailer behavior with zero filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only lookup, it explains input syntax, limits, and partial-rendering behavior. It doesn't detail the exact return format of the sections, but with no output schema and a simple read operation, an agent has enough to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the 'citations' parameter. It does so thoroughly with examples ('44-7-30, 44-7-31 and 44-7-34' or '44-7-30 through 44-7-35'), plus constraints (up to 40 sections, 150k chars). This fully compensates for the schema's silence.
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 states the tool retrieves multiple code sections at once, with explicit examples of list and range input formats. It distinguishes from the singular sibling code_lookup_section by the plural 'sections' and the batch nature described.
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 provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving several sections in a single call, implying it is the right choice when you need a batch. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling 'code_lookup_section' is an obvious single-section counterpart.
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.