law.get_nodeFetch the full text, citation, and hierarchy of a single legal provision by its node id (a UUID returned by law.search).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Node UUID, as returned in law.search results. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Human-readable tool result (also mirrored in content[].text). | |
| isError | No | True when the tool could not complete successfully. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, openWorldHint). The description adds what the tool returns (full text, citation, hierarchy) but does not add deeper behavioral context such as failure behavior or handling of missing/invalid IDs. This is acceptable but modest given the annotations.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and input origin. No filler or redundant phrases; every part contributes to understanding the tool.
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 is simple, has one required parameter, a rich schema description, strong annotations, and an output schema. The description tells the agent exactly what it will retrieve and how to identify the provision, which is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 100%, so the description's mention of 'node id (a UUID returned by law.search)' largely restates the schema's parameter documentation. It reinforces the source of the ID but adds no genuinely new meaning beyond structured metadata.
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 verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('full text, citation, and hierarchy of a single legal provision'), and the key identifier type ('node id' UUID). It also ties the input to law.search, which helps distinguish this single-provision lookup from search and coverage siblings.
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 makes the usage context clear: call this when you already have a node UUID from law.search. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the workflow implication is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.