Skip to main content
Glama
paulieb89

UK Business Tools - Ledgerhall

by paulieb89

Get Legislation Section

law_legislation_get_section
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the parsed text of a specific UK legislation provision—Act section, SI regulation, or article—with heading, territorial extent, and in-force status. Pass the provision number to retrieve exact content, not surrounding parts.

Instructions

USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a known Act / SI and want the parsed text of a specific section, regulation, or article, with extent and in-force metadata.

Returns the provision's own text and its own heading — never a neighbouring or enclosing Part/Chapter's content. Also returns territorial extent, in-force status, and prospective flag. Content capped per max_chars (default 10,000, ~2,500 tokens) — raise for unusually long definition sections; check content_truncated in the response.

Works uniformly across Act sections ('section-N'), SI regulations ('regulation-N'), and SI articles ('article-N') — pass the bare number regardless of which the document uses; you don't need to know which noun applies. Raises a not_found error (rather than returning a plausible but wrong node) if the number doesn't exist in this document — check legislation_get_toc for valid numbers.

ALWAYS check extent — a section may apply to England & Wales but not Scotland or Northern Ireland. Reciting a section without checking extent is a recurring legal-research error.

Alternative: call read_resource(uri="legislation://{type}/{year}/{number}/ section/{section}") for raw CLML XML; use this tool when you want the parsed structured response instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesLegislation type code: 'ukpga' (Acts), 'uksi' (SIs), 'asp' (Scottish Acts), 'nia' (NI Acts). Use the value from legislation_search results.
yearYesYear of enactment
numberYesChapter or SI number
sectionYesProvision number, e.g. '47' or '12A' — works for Act sections, SI regulations, and SI articles alike. Use the numeric part only — not 'section-47'/'regulation-47'/'article-47'. Schedules are not currently supported.
max_charsNoMaximum characters of section content to return. Default 10,000 (~2,500 tokens) covers almost every section. Raise to 50,000+ only for unusually long Finance Act definition sections. Check content_truncated in the response to see if it was cut.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesSection title or heading
extentNoTerritorial extent: list of 'England', 'Wales', 'Scotland', 'Northern Ireland'. Empty list means unknown — do not assume full UK extent.
contentYesPlain text content of the section, possibly truncated per max_chars. Check content_truncated and original_length for full-text information.
in_forceNoFalse if the section is explicitly marked repealed in CLML. True only when an InForce element is present in the section body (rare). Null for most sections — the data.xml endpoint does not carry a per-section current in-force boolean; null does not mean repealed.
warningsNoNon-fatal retrieval or parsing warnings the caller should disclose where relevant.
prospectiveNoTrue if this section has not yet come into force; None if unknown
version_dateNoDate of the version retrieved
source_formatNoSource parsed for this response. html_fallback means CLML XML was unavailable and text was parsed from the public HTML page.xml
section_numberYesSection number, e.g. '47', '12A', 'Schedule 2'
original_lengthNoOriginal plain-text length in characters before any truncation
content_truncatedNoTrue if content was cut to fit max_chars

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description goes well beyond them: it explains truncation behavior (content capped per max_chars, check content_truncated), error behavior (not_found rather than a plausible-but-wrong node), what is and is not returned (own heading, never neighbouring Part/Chapter), and a domain caution about extent. This is rich behavioral disclosure that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the use-when clause and structured into short paragraphs, each carrying a distinct payload (scope, return boundaries, truncation, cross-type behavior, error, extent caveat, alternative). Slightly long but every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 values need not be explained, and the description still adds the essential context: truncation signals, not_found behavior, extent caveat, and the raw-XML alternative. For a 5-param, 4-required tool with cross-type input semantics, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema for two params: it clarifies that 'section' takes the bare number regardless of Act/SI article noun, and it justifies the max_chars default and when to raise it. It does not re-explain type/year/number, but the added rationale for the ambiguous params earns above baseline.

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 (get) and resource (parsed text of a specific section/regulation/article), and distinguishes from siblings by naming the read_resource alternative and pointing to legislation_get_toc for valid numbers. An agent can tell it apart from law_legislation_get_toc and law_legislation_search without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Opens with 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a known Act / SI', names the alternative (read_resource for raw CLML XML), and gives the fallback (legislation_get_toc for valid numbers). Explicit when and when-not guidance is present.

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