Skip to main content
Glama

Avokata: Lithuanian law for your agent

search_law

Find the statutory provision (teisės akto straipsnis) that governs a question. PASS THE QUERY IN LITHUANIAN. The corpus is Lithuanian law in Lithuanian; an English query is not translated for you and does not work - measured 2026-08-28 on 23 questions a lawyer had answered from the corpus, Lithuanian found the confirmed article for 10 of them and English for 0, and the English attempts did not come back empty, they came back wrong. If the user writes in another language, translate INTO Lithuanian and use the term of art a Lithuanian lawyer would type: ieškinio senaties terminas, darbo sutarties nutraukimas, nuomos sutartis, servitutas, juridinio asmens pertvarkymas. Searches acts and codes (įstatymai ir kodeksai) in the consolidated version in force now. Returns pinpoints (article numbers), not summaries. Follow up with read_paragraphs to read the text, or cited_by to see how the courts have read it. jurisdictions accepts several for a matter that spans countries. codes names the code the question belongs to (CPK, BPK, ABTĮ, CK, DK) and you should pass it for anything PROCEDURAL. Every procedural code has articles with the same headings, different numbers and different time limits, so an answer from the wrong one looks exactly like an answer from the right one: measured 2026-08-28, four of ten procedural questions returned their top hit from the wrong code, including a civil cassation deadline answered from the criminal procedure code.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
alsoNoOther phrasings of the SAME question, each fused as its own ranking - up to 4. Pass one only when it is a genuinely DIFFERENT ANGLE: the legal term of art, or the noun phrase a provision heading would be written in. Do NOT pass the same sentence reworded, which was measured to make results worse (hit@5 12 to 10). You are the one who knows what a different angle on this question is, which is why this is offered rather than applied automatically.
codesNoRestrict to named codes by their short form (`CK`, `CPK`, `BK`, `DK`). The fastest way to ask 'what does the Civil Code say about this'.
limitNoHow many passages to return, default 10. Each carries its own pinpoint, so a larger number is more context rather than more documents.
queryYesThe question or the provision, IN LITHUANIAN - the corpus is Lithuanian and an English query returns confident nonsense rather than nothing. Both forms work: a citation (`CK 6.217`) or a phrase (`esminis sutarties pažeidimas`). There is no separate article filter, and no date filter: this tool answers about law in force NOW.
sessionNoThe `session` value connect returned, when this client keeps no connection session. Pass it on every Avokata call in this conversation; omit it when the client sends a key.
in_forceNoTrue (the default) searches only acts in force. Set false to include repealed ones - which is a different question from what governed on a past date; for that, find the act and ask `check_validity` with `on_date`.
act_typesNoNarrow by the register's own type of act, e.g. `Įstatymas`, `Kodeksas`, `Nutarimas`. Omit to search every type.
act_numberNoSearch inside ONE act by its official register number (`XII-2603`) or a code abbreviation the map knows (`DK`, `CK`, `CPK`). Lawyers search by Nr.; this is how you restrict to that act without naming every article.
jurisdictionsNoWhich jurisdictions to search, as codes (`LT`). Omit for the account's own. Adding a country you do not hold does not fail; the answer names what was unavailable.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and exceeds it: discloses that it returns pinpoints not summaries, that it searches only law in force (no date filter), that English queries return confident nonsense (with measurement data), and that foreign jurisdictions won't fail but name what's unavailable. It also explains the procedural-code pitfall explicitly.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Despite length, every sentence earns its place: the critical language warning is front-loaded, the procedural-code warning is bolded and quantified, and follow-up tools are named. The structure flows logically from purpose to usage to pitfalls and parameters, with no filler.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what the tool returns, how to phrase queries, how to restrict by codes/acts/types/jurisdictions, and what happens when parameters are misused. It also points to downstream tools, covering everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

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 substantial meaning beyond the schema: explains why `codes` is critical for procedural questions, clarifies `also` as genuinely different angles with hit-rate measurements, interprets `limit` (more context, not more documents), and distinguishes `in_force` from past-date questions. It enriches every parameter with actionable guidance.

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 ('Find the statutory provision') and resource ('teisės akto straipsnis', 'acts and codes in the consolidated version in force now'), and distinguishes its scope from siblings like search_practice (which handles practice guidance). The description is unambiguous about what this tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs the language requirement ('PASS THE QUERY IN LITHUANIAN') with measured evidence, tells when to pass `codes` for procedural matters, provides follow-up tools (read_paragraphs, cited_by), and points to alternative `check_validity` for past-date questions. It clearly differentiates from other tools and gives concrete conditions.

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