Skip to main content
Glama

Avokata: Lithuanian law & court practice

The publisher's text, as published

read_source_text
Read-onlyIdempotent

Sign-in required: call connect(email) and connect_verify first (free, one email) unless this connection is already signed in. The document's text exactly as the publisher published it (šaltinio tekstas), paged by character offset, with none of our sections, voice labels or units: the source our structure is built on. Read it to check us when a read's structure_check says verify, when a section or speaker label looks wrong, or before you rely on whose words a passage is. Each page gives the publisher's link, the text's sha256, how the text is held (raw_basis) and the units of ours it overlaps (units_here), so you can cross-check our structure. Continue with next_from_char. If our structure is wrong, say so: submit_feedback(kind='structure'). ECHR cases (coe.hudoc:) have no text here: the answer says so and gives the HUDOC link. Example arguments: {"document_id": "<document_id or unit id from a result>", "from_char": 0, "max_chars": 6000}.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
on_dateNoOn an act: `YYYY-MM-DD` reads the held edition in force that day (its own text, link and dates). Omit for the current text. Rulings have one text.
sessionNoThe `session` value the sign-in returned. Pass it on every call in this conversation, so the sign-in survives however this client handles connections; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key.
from_charNoCharacter offset to start at, 0 for the top; continue with the previous page's `next_from_char`. A read's `structure_check.raw.args` gives the offsets of the span it served.
max_charsNoPage size in characters, default 6000, at most 20000. A page ends at a line break or space, never inside a word.
document_idYesWhat to read, as in read_paragraphs: a search hit's `id` (a `#` unit id starts the page where that unit starts), a `document.id`, a case number or an act's number.
jurisdictionNoWhich jurisdiction the id belongs to (`LT`). Omit for the account's own.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses real operational traits: sign-in is required (connect + connect_verify first), what each page returns (publisher link, sha256, raw_basis, units_here), how to continue (next_from_char), and the negative case that ECHR `coe.hudoc:` documents have no text but return a HUDOC link. This is exactly the context annotations cannot provide.

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?

The critical prerequisite (sign-in) is front-loaded, then purpose, then use cases, then pagination, then edge cases — a sensible order. It is dense and long-ish, but nearly every sentence carries distinct information; a little tightening would help.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns (per-page fields), continuation mechanics, auth requirements, and the ECHR no-text case. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result without opening other tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value on top: it shows example arguments, explains pagination flow via `next_from_char`, and notes that offsets can be cross-checked against a read's `structure_check.raw.args`. It does not re-explain on_date/jurisdiction, which the schema already handles well.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: the publisher's text exactly as published, paged by character offset, explicitly excluding 'our sections, voice labels or units'. This implicitly and clearly distinguishes it from the structured-read sibling (read_paragraphs) and frames it as the ground-truth source the structure is built on.

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?

Gives concrete triggers: read it when a read's `structure_check` says `verify`, when a section or speaker label looks wrong, or before relying on whose words a passage is. It also routes follow-up actions (submit_feedback with kind='structure'). It lacks an explicit 'use read_paragraphs instead when…' counter-route, so it is clear context without full exclusion guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources