Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Indiana Code

by org.openindianalaw
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Search Indiana county local rules

local_rules_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Full-text search of posted current county local-rule PDFs. county optionally narrows to one county name or slug. Proposed rules are not indexed. Fetch a page with ic_get_companion using the returned doc_id. Unofficial; not legal advice.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "local_rules_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
countyNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds real value: only 'current' posted PDFs are indexed, proposed rules are excluded, the results are unofficial and not legal advice. It does not cover result volume or how the doc_id ties to page fetching beyond the one hint, but the additions exceed annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four short sentences, scoping and exclusions front-loaded, next-step guidance last, and a brief disclaimer. No redundancy and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present the description needn't explain return fields, and it still surfaces doc_id and the companion-fetch workflow. Combined with county semantics and the proposed-rules exclusion, only the unspecified 'limit' parameter keeps it from being fully self-contained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain 'county' well ('one county name or slug' and that it is optional narrowing) and implies query is the full-text term, but 'limit' is never mentioned — no default, no cap, no effect on results — leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search of posted current county local-rule PDFs') and constrains scope ('Proposed rules are not indexed'). It does not name the near-sibling local_rules_browse, so an agent must infer that browse-vs-search is the split, but the scope details make the tool's identity clear.

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?

Gives explicit context for use (full-text search over current posted rules), an exclusion (proposed rules are not indexed), and a follow-up path (fetch the page with ic_get_companion using the returned doc_id). The only missing piece is naming local_rules_browse as the alternative for non-search navigation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Indiana Code toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources