ndlaw

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

lookup_authority

Resolve a North Dakota constitutional, statutory, court-rule, or administrative citation and retrieve its text, optionally as of a specific date.

Instructions

Retrieve the text of a ND constitutional, statutory, court-rule, or administrative provision — optionally as it read on a specific date.

Resolves citations like "N.D. Const. art. I, § 8", "N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-03", "N.D.R.Civ.P. 56", or "N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-01". A CHAPTER of either numbered code ("N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32", "N.D.A.C. ch. 75-02-04.1") answers with unit: "chapter" — its catchline, status, and the index of its sections with their catchlines — rather than text, because a chapter has none of its own; call this tool again on the section you want. Chapters that repealed entirely are answerable too, with the repealing authority. When as_of_date is given (ISO YYYY-MM-DD), returns the version in force on that date; this is what lets you read a statute "as the court applied it" in an older opinion. Omit as_of_date for the current text.

For the Constitution, the 1889<->1981 renumbering is bridged automatically: a modern cite (art. V, § 2) at a pre-1981 date returns its original-section predecessor (§ 72), and an original §-cite (or amend. art.) at a post-1981 date returns its modern successor — each with requested_citation, returned_provision, relation, and a note explaining the link (source: NDCC Replacement Vol. 13 disposition tables).

Returns the provision text, heading, effective window, enacting/amending authority, source URL, and a count of opinions construing it. If the relevant corpus is not installed, says so. Chapter answers carry the section index and the chapter's own construing count (opinions citing the chapter as a whole) in place of text and effective dates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`citation`	Yes	A constitutional, statutory, court-rule, or admin-code reference.
`as_of_date`	No	Optional ISO date; the version in force then (default: current).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.4.0Aug 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: chapter answers return catchline/status/section index rather than text, repealed chapters still answer with repealing authority, the 1889<->1981 constitutional renumbering is bridged with requested_citation/returned_provision/relation/note, and an uninstalled corpus is reported. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and citation examples first, then edge cases. Nearly every sentence adds operational value, though the constitutional renumbering paragraph is long and could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value enumeration isn't required, yet the description still notes what is returned (text, heading, effective window, authority, URL, construing count) and covers edge cases like missing corpora and chapter-only answers. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: it enumerates acceptable citation forms (Const./N.D.C.C./N.D.R.Civ.P./Admin. Code) and explains exactly what as_of_date selects ('version in force on that date').

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (ND constitutional/statutory/court-rule/administrative provision text) with scope. It clearly separates itself from siblings like search_authority, get_authority_history, and get_provision_xrefs, which do different jobs.

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 clear conditional guidance on as_of_date (use it to read a statute as an older opinion applied it; omit for current text) and explains the chapter case with an explicit follow-up instruction ('call this tool again on the section you want'). It does not, however, name sibling alternatives (e.g., when to prefer search_authority to locate a citation), so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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

Deploy Server