One provision of the Georgia ('ga') or United States ('us') constitution as printed in the O.C.G.A., by citation ('Art. I, Sec. I, Para. I', 'Amend. XIV', 'Preamble') or slug, as its Markdown twin with the case annotations capped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scheme | Yes | ||
| citation | 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful output-format information ('Markdown twin with the case annotations capped'), but the phrase is somewhat ambiguous and does not explain pagination, errors, or availability limitations.
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?
A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the resource and supported by examples. The awkward 'Markdown twin with the case annotations capped' phrase slightly hurts clarity, but the overall structure is efficient.
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 tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return shape; it gestures at Markdown output with capped annotations but remains vague. It also does not define what a slug looks like, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent trying to construct a valid request.
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 carries the burden. It explains possible scheme values ('ga' or 'us') and gives concrete citation examples for the citation parameter. It does not fully clarify the slug format, but it provides substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 names a specific resource (Georgia or United States constitution provisions as printed in the O.C.G.A.), a lookup action, and accepted identifiers (citation or slug). It is distinct from sibling tools like code_lookup_section, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with constitution_browse.
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?
Usage context is implied: use this for constitutional provisions by citation or slug. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over constitution_browse or other lookup tools, and no when-not-to-use guidance.
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.