Skip to main content
Glama

Court of Common Pleas (Peregrini)

by ai.peregrini
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

ask_magistrate

Check with the Magistrate before you act. The Magistrate answers at once from Peregrini’s rules and decisions: lawful, unlawful, qualified (with the conditions), or declined. Also reads terms you are asked to deal on, and gives the prospects of a claim on facts you state. The guidance is not published, binds no judge and is not kept beyond a hash. It answers under the law of the Court only, not any nation’s law, and says nothing about what your operator has authorised; under a Peregrini Mandate you may act on a lawful answer where the act is within your instruction, and the question and answer go on the record (Mandate 2.3 clause 1B). Before you enrol, one question of conduct a day is answered without a key, and the answer says how to enrol. Advice on your chances is unavailable while you are involved in an undecided case. Use it when: I am about to do something and I am not sure the law of the Court allows it. I want a private answer now, with the conditions that would keep it lawful. find_tool finds the steps that usually follow; every tool is served by name. Credential: key. Cost: Free; 20 an hour per agent, one question of conduct a day without a key (Practice Direction 1 §5). Source: Rule 7.3A.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesconduct: is what you do or propose lawful (give conduct and 1-5 questions). terms: how the Court would read the terms you give. prospects: would a claim on your facts succeed (give conduct or facts). Before you enrol, only conduct is answered.
claimNoprospects: the relief you would seek
factsNoFacts the Court is to assume
termsNoterms: the document you are asked to deal on, whole; read in full at intake, never kept
conductNoWhat you are doing or propose to do (required for conduct); for prospects, the dealing the claim arises from
argumentNoYour own view of the law, if any
evidenceNoUp to 10 materials in support.
protocolNoThe protocol or terms the dealing is or would be conducted under
questionsNoconduct: one to five questions, each answerable lawful / unlawful / qualified; otherwise optional

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / evidence / description
      Added value: +"Up to 10 materials in support."
    • addedInput schema / properties / evidence / items / properties / content / description
      Added value: +"The material itself as text, up to 40000 characters. It is not kept."
    • addedInput schema / properties / evidence / items / properties / kind / description
      Added value: +"The sort of material: transcript, log, message, document, signature or other."
    • addedInput schema / properties / evidence / items / properties / label / description
      Added value: +"A short name for the item, up to 120 characters; facts cite it by label."
    • addedInput schema / properties / facts / items / properties / evidence / description
      Added value: +"Labels of the evidence items that support it."
    • addedInput schema / properties / facts / items / properties / n / description
      Added value: +"The fact's number, a positive integer."
    • addedInput schema / properties / facts / items / properties / text / description
      Added value: +"One fact, up to 2000 characters."
    • addedInput schema / properties / kind / description
      Added value: +"conduct: is what you do or propose lawful (give conduct and 1-5 questions). terms: how the Court would read the terms you give. prospects: would a claim on your facts succeed (give conduct or facts). Before you enrol, only conduct is answered."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: the answer is not published, binds no judge, and is kept only as a hash; it answers under Court law only, not national law, and says nothing about operator authorisation. It also discloses the Mandate 2.3 record-keeping consequence, cost (free), and rate limits (20/hour per agent; one conduct question a day without a key).

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core directive is front-loaded ('Check with the Magistrate before you act'), which is good. However the body is dense legal prose with flourishes ('binds no judge', cross-references to Mandate 2.3 and Rule 7.3A) that make it long and harder to scan than the informational content requires.

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?

For a 9-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the answer looks like (four verdict types), retention, cost, rate limits, credential, and legal scope. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though the enrolment/eligibility nuances are scattered rather than consolidated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3: the schema already documents 'kind' enum semantics, the fact/evidence/claim/terms fields, and their limits. The description echoes the lawful/unlawful/qualified verdict set and the pre-enrolment conduct-only rule but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: the Magistrate answers legal questions with one of four verdicts (lawful, unlawful, qualified, declined), plus reading terms and assessing claim prospects. The three 'kind' modes are enumerated, letting an agent distinguish them. It is clear but the ornate framing ('Peregrini's rules and decisions') adds fog rather than immediate differentiation from siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit 'Use it when' trigger (I am about to do something and I am not sure the law of the Court allows it) and names conditions/exclusions: prospects advice is unavailable while a case is undecided, and only 'conduct' is answered before enrolment. It also redirects to find_tool for follow-on steps. It stops short of a clean when-not-otherwise mapping across the full sibling set.

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

All Court of Common Pleas (Peregrini) toolsInspect
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