Skip to main content
Glama

GLO Law

Statute section by citation

statute
Read-onlyIdempotent

Exact lookup of one statute section or one regulation section by citation, in a point-in-time snapshot of published law. Returns the text verbatim with jurisdiction, corpus, citation, heading, path, source_url, as_of, act_status, last_amended_year and repaired. Enacted text only: not case law or annotations, no treatment or "good law" judgment, and nothing in a result means the text is current; as_of on each row is its snapshot date. Default source: 2,123,652 rows in four snapshots, never blended (state statutes from open-us-law 2026.08, as_of 2026-08-14; state statutes from Justia 2019-2021 where the newer snapshot lacks the section, with GA, NC, PR and VI Justia-only; the United States Code; and 9,888 Kansas Administrative Regulations from the 2022 bound edition). source= reaches one regulation source (cfr for federal, or a state code), each with its own note, coverage_note, defect floor, held units and citation form, never mixed with another. Regulations outside the loaded sources are absent from this mirror, which says nothing about whether a rule exists. A miss is not an absence: structured_lookup_supported=false means that lookup form cannot match for the jurisdiction, and cite_normalized and cite_forms_tried report the forms tried. Row flags: ends_at_colon (text stopping where a table or list is announced; its absence does not show the text is whole), page_overlap_repeats_removed (raw=true returns the stored text unchanged), last_amended_year_older_than_text. A held unit answers kind "held" with its reasons and no text. Every response, including 400 and 404, carries "note" and "coverage_note". The sources tool returns this tool’s full coverage statement and, per source code, its coverage, citation forms, served and held counts and read dates.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawNostatutes only: true returns the stored text unchanged, without the page-overlap repeat removal
citeNofull citation as published, e.g. "KRS § 11A.001" (2026-08-14 rows, no year), "KS Stat § 1-201 (2021)" (Justia rows), or "K.A.R. 1-1-1" (Kansas regulations, no section sign) — the reliable form for every jurisdiction
titleNooptional title or chapter number narrowing a jurisdiction+section lookup; with source="cfr" the CFR title, required with section; for other sources the forms are given by sources(tool="statute", source=<code>)
sourceNoomit for statutes and Kansas regulations; a regulation source code ("cfr" for federal, or a state code) reaches that source alone; each code’s coverage and citation forms are given by sources(tool="statute", source=<code>)
sectionNosection number as the publisher prints it, e.g. "21-6614", "11A.001", or a Kansas regulation number "1-1-1"; requires jurisdiction. Justia rows carry none, so this can never match one of them
jurisdictionNojurisdiction code, e.g. "us" or "ks"; requires section. Resolves for the federal slice, for 2026-08-14 state rows and for the Kansas regulation rows (Justia-only GA/NC/PR/VI never match this way)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the four never-blended snapshots and their dates, per-source coverage/defect/held-unit notes, the rule that every response including 400 and 404 carries note and coverage_note, and the row flags (ends_at_colon, page_overlap_repeats_removed, last_amended_year_older_than_text). It also explicitly warns that as_of is a snapshot date and nothing in a result implies currency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the body is a single dense block of semicolon-chained parentheticals, including a row count and a full enumeration of snapshot provenance. Much of that provenance is duplicated by the sources tool the description itself points to, so several clauses do not earn their place in a tool description.

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?

For a citation-lookup tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: return fields, snapshot semantics, miss-versus-absence handling (structured_lookup_supported, cite_normalized, cite_forms_tried), held units answering kind "held" with no text, and row flags. It also correctly redirects to the sources tool for per-source coverage detail.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents cite, section, jurisdiction, title, source and raw with examples, so the description need not compensate. The description adds only marginal meaning, notably that source reaches exactly one regulation source and is never mixed, and that a hit form depends on jurisdiction. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first clause states a specific verb and resource with scope: "Exact lookup of one statute section or one regulation section by citation." It immediately distinguishes this from the sibling search tools (statute_search, fts, semantic_search) by emphasizing single-section exact citation lookup, and it explicitly excludes case law and annotations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives concrete routing guidance: omit source for statutes and Kansas regulations, set source=<code> to reach one regulation source alone, and use sources(tool="statute", source=<code>) for per-source citation forms. It also explains how to interpret a miss versus an absence. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool (e.g. statute_search) for the browse/free-text case, so it is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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.

Resources