Skip to main content
Glama

Vaquill

by io.github.Vaquill-AI

Fetch

fetch
Read-only

Fetch one Indian enactment by the id from a search result, returning {id, title, text, url, metadata}. Also accepts a source URL or a bare path. NOTE: the India corpus serves an enactment as publisher links rather than inline text, so text carries the title and metadata carries the PDF, HTML and plain-text URLs to read. Prefer get_act_text if you can call it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the India corpus does not serve inline text, `text` carries the title, and `metadata` carries the PDF/HTML/plain-text URLs. It does not go into failure behavior, but the annotations and output schema reduce the need for that.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, the corpus-specific caveat is clearly 'NOTE'-labeled, and the routing advice is placed last without diluting the main message.

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 return shape is already documented, and the description correctly focuses on the non-obvious corpus behavior and tool routing. The only notable gap is the unresolved URL/path parameter mapping, which prevents a perfect completeness score.

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 carries the burden of explaining the lone `id` parameter. It usefully clarifies that `id` comes from a search result and that source URLs or bare paths are also accepted. However, it is ambiguous whether the URL/path is passed through the `id` parameter or is a separate, undocumented mode of invocation, and no format details are given.

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 and resource: 'Fetch one Indian enactment by the `id` from a `search` result,' and lists the return shape. It also distinguishes itself from `get_act_text` by naming the preferred sibling, so an agent can differentiate the tools.

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?

Explicitly says the id comes from a search result and instructs the agent to 'Prefer `get_act_text` if you can call it,' giving a clear routing rule. The alternate source URL or bare path input is also mentioned, providing concrete when-to-use context.

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

All Vaquill toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_acts does section-level text search, list_acts browses filters, get_act_text retrieves source links, and get_act_amendments covers legislative history. A few overlapping pairs exist (search vs search_acts, fetch vs get_act_text), but the descriptions explicitly steer callers toward the preferred tool, reducing real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow a predictable get_/list_/search_ pattern, with get_act_text, get_act_amendments, list_acts, list_act_filters, and search_acts being clear and consistent. The bare names fetch and search are minor deviations, though they serve as standard compatibility hooks rather than random exceptions.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped count for an Indian legislation research server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the workflow: searching, browsing, filtering, retrieving text, checking amendments, and mapping repealed codes, with no unnecessary bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the core research lifecycle end to end: discover what exists (list_acts), understand filter vocabulary (list_act_filters), search sections (search_acts), retrieve source text (get_act_text), check amendments (get_act_amendments), and translate repealed provisions to current law (get_corresponding_provisions). The only noted gap, the IEA/BSA mapping, is explicitly flagged as not yet available rather than silently missing.

Resources