Public Indian legal search MCP for Roop judgments, statutes, and corpus grounding.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 2.7/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct document type (judgments, statutes, corpus) and action (search, get_packet, status). No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow the pattern 'roop.public.<document_type>.<action>' with consistent lowercase dot-separated names.
Five tools is well-scoped for a legal search domain, covering search and retrieval for two document types plus a status check.
The set covers search and retrieval for judgments and statutes, which is sufficient for basic legal research. Missing operations like listing or browsing are not critical but could be beneficial.
roop.public.corpus.statusBInspectReport the public corpus surfaces exposed through this DMZ MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions reporting surfaces. It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks detail on what the report returns (e.g., format, structure). Without an output schema, this omission leaves agents uncertain about the result's shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline 4 is appropriate given zero parameters and full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it reports public corpus surfaces, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes implicitly from sibling tools focused on judgments and statutes, but lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description only states what it does, without indicating context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
roop.public.judgments.get_packetCInspectFetch a bounded public judgment or appellate tribunal packet by ROOP judgment id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roop_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or auth requirements. The term 'bounded' is unexplained, and the response format is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but not optimally structured. It front-loads the purpose but omits essential details, making it under-informative for a 1-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description fails to explain what a 'packet' is, the return format, or any prerequisites. It is incomplete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'by ROOP judgment id' without adding format, length, or examples. The single parameter lacks any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'fetch', the resource ('public judgment or appellate tribunal packet'), and the input ('ROOP judgment id'), making it distinct from sibling tools like search and corpus status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to search instead of fetch by ID, or any context about bounded vs. unbounded packets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
roop.public.judgments.get_segmentCInspectFetch one bounded, continuable segment of an exact public judgment by ROOP judgment id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | ||
| roop_id | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at 'bounded, continuable' behavior implying pagination, but does not explain how continuation works, error outcomes, or confirm read-only nature. For a fetch with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate by explaining return format and pagination mechanics. It does not detail how to use offset/max_chars, what a 'segment' contains, or how to continue fetching, leaving significant gaps for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only references roop_id ('by ROOP judgment id'). The words 'bounded' and 'continuable' implicitly map to max_chars and offset, but this is not explicit and offers no concrete syntax, defaults, or relationship between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource ('public judgment by ROOP judgment id'), along with the scope ('one bounded, continuable segment'). It distinguishes from search tools but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_packet, so it lacks full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_packet or search. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or any comparative context, leaving the agent without selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
roop.public.judgments.searchCInspectSearch public Indian judgment and appellate tribunal metadata plus public snippets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| court | No | Optional public court or tribunal code such as SC, DELHC, or NCLAT. | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that it returns metadata and public snippets, but lacks disclosure of other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limiting, or authentication requirements. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden, which it only partially fulfills.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 14 words, which is very concise. It gets straight to the point. However, it lacks structure or bullet points that might aid readability, but overall it is efficiently written.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too brief given the lack of annotations and output schema. It does not explain what constitutes 'metadata' or 'public snippets', nor how the search logic works (e.g., full-text, exact match). It lacks necessary context for an AI agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not provide any additional meaning for the parameters. Only the 'court' parameter has a description in the schema, while 'query' and 'limit' are undocumented. The description itself does not mention or elaborate on any parameters, leaving a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'search' and the specific resource 'public Indian judgment and appellate tribunal metadata plus public snippets'. It effectively conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_packet or statutes.search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this search tool versus the sibling tools. There is no guidance on prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
roop.public.statutes.get_packetCInspectFetch a bounded public statute packet using the public statutes search surface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only says 'fetch', implying read-only, but does not confirm idempotency, auth requirements, or any other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words, but the sentence is vague and does not convey sufficient information to be effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and sparse parameters, the description is insufficient. Missing return value details and parameter semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the meaning or format of the `query` parameter or how `limit` is applied.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Fetch a bounded public statute packet' which identifies a specific verb and resource, but terms like 'bounded' and 'packet' are undefined. It distinguishes from sibling search tools only implicitly via the action 'fetch' vs 'search'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like roop.public.statutes.search. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
roop.public.statutes.searchCInspectSearch public statutes and subordinate legislation metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| doc_kind | No | ||
| state_code | No | ||
| instrumentType | No | Camel-case alias for instrument_type. | |
| instrument_type | No | Optional instrument type filter such as rules, regulations, notification, order, circular, or form. | |
| jurisdiction_scope | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'metadata', implying limited scope, but omits details like pagination, result format, or query behavior. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (single sentence), which is efficient but lacks structure. It could be expanded with bullet points or key constraints without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover common usage patterns, result behavior, or typical filters, making it hard for the agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 29%, yet the description adds zero parameter explanation. It does not clarify meaning or usage of any of the 7 parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on the sparse schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'public statutes and subordinate legislation metadata'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'roop.public.judgments.search' by specifying the domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., judgments search, get_packet for statutes). Missing context for optimal invocation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.