Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
leginova-mcp

leginova-mcp

by Gecka-Apps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Read a section of a code

leginova_read_code_section
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves full text of a legal code section with all articles in reading order. For long sections, pass an offset to get the next chunk.

Instructions

Full text of a code section (chapter, section...) with all its articles, in reading order. Long sections are returned in chunks: pass back offset to continue.

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": {
      "code_slug": "<code_slug>",
      "section_slug": "<section_slug>"
    },
    "name": "leginova_read_code_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offsetNo
code_slugYesCode slug, e.g. "code-du-travail-de-nouvelle-caledonie" (see leginova_list_codes)
max_charsNo
section_slugYesFrom leginova_get_code_outline or a SECTION_CODE search result

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are in reading order and long sections are chunked with an offset continuation protocol. It does not mention limits or what happens at the end of content, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return content and followed by the one operational rule that matters. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so adequately (full text, all articles, reading order, chunking). The only meaningful omission is max_chars, which an agent may need to tune for large sections.

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 coverage is 50%: code_slug and section_slug are documented in the schema, while offset and max_chars are not. The description compensates for offset by explaining its continuation role, but max_chars (default 30000, range 2000-100000) is left entirely unexplained in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Full text of a code section ... with all its articles, in reading order'), which implicitly separates it from leginova_get_code_article (single article) and leginova_get_code_outline (structure only). It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The second sentence gives a clear operational instruction for pagination ('pass back `offset` to continue'), which is genuinely useful. However, there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like get_code_article or get_code_outline; the intended usage is only implied by the content description.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools