GroundRules - US Law Text
REMOTE · LAW.AGENTLOOKUPS.AI
The original text of US federal and state law, with official sources; never a summary or advice.
Available components
Last scanned (3 hours ago)
Scores higher than 76% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Education and Research
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security74
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability62
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 762 tokens (~190/item across 4 items; 4 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management80
- Stability observed for 24 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage90
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 71% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 4 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 5 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities60
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2025-06-18; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 5 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 77 to 80. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 23 days of observed history at the previous scan, 24 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 3 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 70 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 21 days of observed history at the previous scan, 22 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 1 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 63 to 67. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 19 days of observed history at the previous scan, 20 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 30 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 57 to 60. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 17 days of observed history at the previous scan, 18 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 28 Oct 26 +1
- Tool “law_search” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- 26 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 23 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 33 to 37. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 10 days of observed history at the previous scan, 11 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 21 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 27 to 30. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 8 days of observed history at the previous scan, 9 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://law.agentlookups.ai/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=law.agentlookups.ai | CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 27 Oct 2026 | 25 Jan 2027 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 60f07b58adc1f9361e9eb1f08943dbce1c1 |
| SANs: law.agentlookups.ai | ||||||
| CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 4ebd24947e24d394802d84a52fd5b319 |
| CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | f24b6d17f9d9ad7cb1c9fea78782699f |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of law.agentlookups.ai. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| ai. | present | 1814, 3799 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| agentlookups.ai. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://law.agentlookups.ai/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://law.agentlookups.ai/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://law.agentlookups.ai/mcp |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
law_coverage List the law sources we host ~78
Per-source coverage: what we host, section counts, current-through or vintage, last_verified, and a stale flag for any source the recurring verify has proven behind its upstream. Machine-generated from the build manifest; never hand-typed. Absence from this list means we do not host that jurisdiction's text, not that no law exists there.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
law_for_location Find the law that applies at a location ~116
Resolve an address or lat/lon to its full jurisdiction stack: federal, state, county, place, each with its code sources (name, publisher, official URL, current-through, whether we host its text). Unincorporated areas get the county code with no city code; about half of US municipalities publish no code online, and the answer says so and points at where the code lives if anywhere.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | – | One-line street address |
| lat | number | – | – |
| lon | number | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
law_get_section Get the full text of a law section ~139
Fetch full verbatim text by id or citation, or pass references for a batch of up to 10. Each batch item has its own result/error. Includes provenance (official source URL, current-through or vintage label, retrieval time), parent path, and prev/next siblings. The text is reproduced exactly as published by the official source; nothing is added or removed except publisher editorial matter, which we never carry.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| citation | string | – | Full citation, e.g. California Civil Code 1950.5 |
| id | string | – | Section id returned by search |
| references | array | – | Batch of section ids or complete citations |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
law_search Search the text of the law ~343
Search original law by topic, question, or citation. Exact citations resolve directly. Scoped by jurisdiction or source ids (e.g. us, us-tx; us-cfr scopes to the CFR alone, us covers both the US Code and the CFR) or by an address (the address is resolved first, then the search covers exactly its stack's hosted sources). Results are verbatim snippets with citation, official source URL, retrieval time, and a current-through or vintage label adjacent to every snippet; a hit whose source has fallen behind its upstream carries stale:true. Vintage-labeled text is a dated snapshot, not current law. meaning_only:true means no section matched a word of the query, so every hit is only the nearest in meaning and may be unrelated. Requested ids we do not host are named in the response note; law_coverage lists what is hosted.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | – | One-line street address to auto-scope the search; pass this or jurisdictions, not both |
| include_text | integer | – | Include full text for up to this many top results (0 by default; sections over 64KB require get). |
| jurisdictions | string | – | Comma-separated jurisdiction or source ids from law_coverage, e.g. us,us-tx (us-cfr = CFR only) |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| mode | string | – | auto combines word and semantic retrieval when available; keyword avoids model inference. |
| offset | integer | – | – |
| q | string | yes | Topic, question, or citation |
| sources | string | – | Exact comma-separated source IDs; us = US Code only here. Use instead of jurisdictions/address. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the GroundRules - US Law Text MCP server?
GroundRules - US Law Text is a hosted endpoint at https://law.agentlookups.ai/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · law.agentlookups.ai
claude mcp add --transport http ai-agentlookups-groundrules 'https://law.agentlookups.ai/mcp'
What is the GroundRules - US Law Text MCP server?
GroundRules - US Law Text is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as ai.agentlookups/groundrules. The original text of US federal and state law, with official sources; never a summary or advice. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://law.agentlookups.ai/mcp).
Is the GroundRules - US Law Text MCP server safe to use?
GroundRules - US Law Text scores 78 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the GroundRules - US Law Text MCP server expose?
GroundRules - US Law Text exposes 4 tools: law_for_location, law_search, law_get_section, law_coverage. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 676 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the GroundRules - US Law Text MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to GroundRules - US Law Text without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the GroundRules - US Law Text MCP server still maintained?
GroundRules - US Law Text is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.