Mandate Law

submit_intake

Only after the engagement letter is signed. Product facts per https://mandatelaw.ai/api/intake-schema.json. Each fact has a value, a source (prefer verified_in_code), and evidence (paths and short excerpts; no secrets).

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": {
      "matter_id": "<matter_id>",
      "matter_token": "<matter_token>",
      "intake": "<intake>"
    },
    "name": "submit_intake"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`intake`	Yes
`matter_id`	Yes
`matter_token`	Yes	The matter_token returned by request_engagement. Keep it secret.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important gate (the signed engagement letter) plus a data-handling safety rule ('no secrets'). It says nothing about what submission does to the matter, error/validation behavior, or idempotency, so the mutation profile remains opaque.

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?

Three short sentences with the hard precondition first and the data-format rules after; the external schema URL replaces verbosity. Telegraphic phrasing is slightly terse but wastes nothing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a gated mutation tool with an undocumented nested payload, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the payload shape and precondition but leaves out return behavior, failure modes, and the role of matter_id. Usable but incomplete.

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 low (33%) and the nested 'intake' object has no properties declared, but the description compensates well by defining each fact as value + source (preferring verified_in_code) + evidence (paths, short excerpts). matter_id is still unexplained, keeping it below a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description never states a verb+resource directly; the actual purpose (submitting matter intake facts) must be inferred from the name and from the phrase 'Product facts per <schema URL>'. It is distinguishable from request_engagement only indirectly, via the signed-letter precondition. Adequate but vague as a purpose statement.

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?

'Only after the engagement letter is signed' gives an explicit, front-loaded trigger condition that ties the tool to the request_engagement flow. It stops short of naming alternatives or saying what to do instead when the precondition is unmet, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Mandate Law tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?