LegalSearch
Server Details
Public Indian legal search MCP for Roop judgments, statutes, and corpus grounding.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- Roop-World/LegalSearch
- GitHub Stars
- 1
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 2.7/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct resource (corpus, judgments, statutes) and action (status, search, get_packet), with no overlap in purpose. Agents can clearly distinguish them.
All tools follow the strict pattern 'roop.public.<resource>.<action>', using consistent snake_case and verb-noun order. No deviations or mixed conventions.
With 5 tools covering status, search, and retrieval for two main resource types, the count is well-scoped for a focused legal search server.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: checking available surfaces (status), searching metadata, and fetching full packets for both judgments and statutes. No obvious gaps.
Available Tools
5 toolsroop.public.corpus.statusBInspect
Report the public corpus surfaces exposed through this DMZ MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'reports' which implies read-only, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving behavioral traits unclear.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, though it lacks any structural elements like bullet points or sections.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is partially complete. However, it fails to describe the return value or format, which is crucial for a reporting 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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not, which is appropriate for this case.
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 specifies the verb 'Report' and the resource 'public corpus surfaces', clearly indicating the tool's function. However, the term 'surfaces' is somewhat vague and might confuse some agents.
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 (e.g., roop.public.judgments.search). The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for invocation.
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_packetCInspect
Fetch a bounded public judgment or appellate tribunal packet by ROOP judgment id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roop_id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'bounded' without explaining what that entails (e.g., rate limits or pagination). No disclosure of side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the fetch action.
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?
One short sentence with no redundancy. However, it is under-specified; conciseness should not sacrifice necessary information. An additional sentence could improve completeness without being wasteful.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to specify return values, error handling (e.g., 404), or what 'bounded' means. For a fetch-by-id tool, more context on behavior is required.
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 only says 'by ROOP judgment id' without defining the format, constraints, or meaning of 'roop_id'. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 packet', and the specific identifier 'ROOP judgment id'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search' and 'statutes.get_packet' by focusing on a bounded packet fetch by ID.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage when a ROOP judgment ID is known but does not suggest alternatives like 'search' for finding judgments without an ID or 'statutes.get_packet' for statutes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
roop.public.judgments.searchCInspect
Search 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'search' and 'public snippets.' It does not mention rate limits, authentication, search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity), or output format.
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 concise sentence, but it lacks structure or additional detail. While front-loaded, it falls short by being too vague to be fully useful.
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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, search behavior, or parameter specifics needed for correct 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 adds no meaning for any of the three parameters (court, limit, query). It does not explain expected formats, values, or constraints beyond what the schema defines.
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 specifies the resource as 'public Indian judgment metadata and public snippets.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_packet' which retrieves full judgments.
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. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_packet' or 'statutes.search'.
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_packetCInspect
Fetch a bounded public statute packet using the public statutes search surface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says it uses a search surface, but doesn't explain side effects, data freshness, rate limits, or authentication needs. The term 'bounded' hints at constraints but is vague.
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, which is concise, but contains ambiguous terms ('bounded', 'search surface') that reduce clarity. It could be improved with more specific language without adding length.
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 lack of output schema and sparse description, the agent has insufficient context to understand exactly what is returned. Simple tools still need to describe return format or behavior.
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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter explanations. It does not describe 'query' or 'limit' beyond their types. The agent receives no help understanding what values are valid or how they affect the operation.
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 ('Fetch') and the resource ('a bounded public statute packet'). The phrase 'using the public statutes search surface' suggests the mechanism, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like search or status. However, 'bounded' is ambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like roop.public.statutes.search. It does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or mention related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
roop.public.statutes.searchCInspect
Search public statutes and subordinate legislation metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| state_code | No | ||
| jurisdiction_scope | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only says 'search metadata' without disclosing read-only nature, rate limits, or response format. 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?
Single sentence, concise but lacking necessary detail. Under-specified given the parameter count.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide adequate context about required fields, filtering, or return structure.
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 does not explain any parameter (query, limit, state_code, jurisdiction_scope). No meaning added beyond the schema's property names.
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 clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'public statutes and subordinate legislation metadata'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that search other types like judgments.
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 vs alternatives like roop.public.judgments.search. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!