constitution_browse
Read-onlyIdempotent
The articles and sections of a constitution ('ga' or 'us'), or one article's provisions, one line each with twin URLs.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | ||
| scheme | Yes |
Georgia Commons
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions an output characteristic ('one line each with twin URLs') but it is unclear and does not clearly disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations already state. No contradictions exist, but the added transparency is minimal and cryptic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, but the structure is confusing and not front-loaded. It mixes a resource description with unclear output details, making it hard to parse quickly. It is concise in word count but not in clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool appears to be a browsing function for constitutions, the description lacks essential context: what constitutes 'articles and sections', what the 'node' parameter represents, how the output is structured, and how it differs from related tools. It is incomplete for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two parameters (node and scheme) with no descriptions. The description only hints at possible values for scheme ('ga' or 'us') without explaining either parameter's meaning or how they affect the operation, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is vague about the action; it describes 'articles and sections of a constitution' but does not state whether this is a browse, fetch, or list operation. The parenthetical '('ga' or 'us')' is ambiguous and the mention of 'one line each with twin URLs' further confuses the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like constitution_lookup, code_browse, or search. There is no indication of when this tool is preferred or what distinguishes it from sibling tools.
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.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency5/5
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.
Tool Count4/5
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.
Completeness5/5
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.