Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Avokata: Lithuanian law & court practice

by com.avokata
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Send feedback to the team

submit_feedback

Sign-in required: call connect(email) and connect_verify first (free, one email) unless this connection is already signed in. Send feedback about Avokata to the team that builds it: a bug, a wrong answer, missing data, a missing feature, a workflow idea, or praise. Every item is read by a person. When to offer it: an answer came back empty or wrong; the user corrected you or the result; a workflow was missing a step the user needed; the user repeats a manual step the service could do for them; the user says they need something the service does not do. Offer once, in one sentence; the user's task comes first. Ask first. Show the user what you will send and send it only after they agree. Their own words, and any client, case, company or personal detail, go only with their explicit OK; then set confirmed=true. With authored_by='agent' you may report your own observation of the service (the tool, what you expected, what came back) without asking, as long as it holds none of the user's words or confidential content. Fill kind and what (the task, and what went wrong or what is needed). For a wrong answer add expected and got. Add tool and query for context (the query only with the user's OK), severity, and contact_email only when the user wants a reply. Length: what up to 50,000 characters; expected and got up to 20,000 each; query up to 5,000; 80,000 for one item in all. A detailed analysis with context, evidence and proposals is welcome in one item; longer than that, send numbered parts (1/n, 2/n ...), each a complete item. The reply carries a reference id. Tell the user it reached the team; do not promise a reply or a date.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gotNoFor a wrong answer: what came back instead (up to 20000 characters)
kindYesOne of: bug (something failed or errored), wrong_answer (an answer was returned but it was wrong or misleading), missing_data (a document, record or source the user expected is not covered), missing_feature (something the user needs that the service does not do), workflow_idea (a step, sequence or repeated manual task the service could handle), structure (how a document was divided or labelled is wrong (its sections, whose words a passage is, numbering)), praise (something that worked well and should be kept), other (anything else); give document_id and span with kind='structure'
spanNoFor kind='structure': where in the document, as you read it - a pinpoint (`7 p.`), a unit id, or the characters of read_source_text (`1200-1850`). Up to 120 characters.
toolNoThe tool the feedback is about, if one (e.g. the tool that answered wrongly); several: comma-separated
whatNoThe task and what went wrong or what is needed (3-50000 characters)
queryNoThe query or arguments that produced it; only with the user's OK (up to 5000 characters)
messageNoOlder name for `what`, kept so earlier callers still work; prefer `what`
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.
expectedNoFor a wrong answer: what the right answer or result would have been (up to 20000 characters)
severityNolow | normal | high | blocking (blocking: the user cannot do their work)
confirmedNotrue once the user approved sending this; required for authored_by user or agent_drafted
authored_byNouser (their words) | agent_drafted (you wrote it, they approved) | agent (your own observation)
document_idNoFor kind='structure' (or any item about one document): the document's id, or the unit id (`<doc>#<n>`) the doubt is about.
workflow_idNoWhen the feedback is about a workflow (did it work, what was missing): its `workflow_id`, so the item is linked to it. Ask the user before sending; nothing else about the workflow is sent.
contact_emailNoOnly if the user wants a reply: the address to reply to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / kind / description
      Previous value: -"One of: bug (something failed or errored), wrong_answer (an answer was returned but it was wrong or misleading), missing_data (a document, record or source the user expected is not covered), missing_feature (something the user needs that the service does not do), workflow_idea (a step, sequence or repeated manual task the service could handle), praise (something that worked well and should be kept), other (anything else); structure (how a document was divided or labelled is wrong: its sections, whose words a passage is, its numbering; give document_id and span)"New value: +"One of: bug (something failed or errored), wrong_answer (an answer was returned but it was wrong or misleading), missing_data (a document, record or source the user expected is not covered), missing_feature (something the user needs that the service does not do), workflow_idea (a step, sequence or repeated manual task the service could handle), structure (how a document was divided or labelled is wrong (its sections, whose words a passage is, numbering)), praise (something that worked well and should be kept), other (anything else); give document_id and span with kind='structure'"
    • changedInput schema / properties / kind / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "bug",
-  "wrong_answer",
-  "missing_data",
-  "missing_feature",
-  "workflow_idea",
-  "praise",
-  "other",
-  "structure"
-]New value: +[
+  "bug",
+  "wrong_answer",
+  "missing_data",
+  "missing_feature",
+  "workflow_idea",
+  "structure",
+  "praise",
+  "other"
+]
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / document_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "For kind='structure' (or any item about one document): the document's id, or the unit id (`<doc>#<n>`) the doubt is about.",
+  "title": "Document Id"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / kind / description
      Previous value: -"One of: bug (something failed or errored), wrong_answer (an answer was returned but it was wrong or misleading), missing_data (a document, record or source the user expected is not covered), missing_feature (something the user needs that the service does not do), workflow_idea (a step, sequence or repeated manual task the service could handle), praise (something that worked well and should be kept), other (anything else)"New value: +"One of: bug (something failed or errored), wrong_answer (an answer was returned but it was wrong or misleading), missing_data (a document, record or source the user expected is not covered), missing_feature (something the user needs that the service does not do), workflow_idea (a step, sequence or repeated manual task the service could handle), praise (something that worked well and should be kept), other (anything else); structure (how a document was divided or labelled is wrong: its sections, whose words a passage is, its numbering; give document_id and span)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / kind / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "bug",
-  "wrong_answer",
-  "missing_data",
-  "missing_feature",
-  "workflow_idea",
-  "praise",
-  "other"
-]New value: +[
+  "bug",
+  "wrong_answer",
+  "missing_data",
+  "missing_feature",
+  "workflow_idea",
+  "praise",
+  "other",
+  "structure"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / span
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "For kind='structure': where in the document, as you read it - a pinpoint (`7 p.`), a unit id, or the characters of read_source_text (`1200-1850`). Up to 120 characters.",
+  "title": "Span"
+}
  3. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / expected / description
      Previous value: -"For a wrong answer: what the right answer or result would have been"New value: +"For a wrong answer: what the right answer or result would have been (up to 20000 characters)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / got / description
      Previous value: -"For a wrong answer: what came back instead"New value: +"For a wrong answer: what came back instead (up to 20000 characters)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"The query or arguments that produced it; only with the user's OK"New value: +"The query or arguments that produced it; only with the user's OK (up to 5000 characters)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / what / description
      Previous value: -"The task and what went wrong or what is needed (3-2000 characters)"New value: +"The task and what went wrong or what is needed (3-50000 characters)"
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / workflow_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "When the feedback is about a workflow (did it work, what was missing): its `workflow_id`, so the item is linked to it. Ask the user before sending; nothing else about the workflow is sent.",
+  "title": "Workflow Id"
+}
  5. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / tool / description
      Previous value: -"The tool the feedback is about, if one (e.g. the tool that answered wrongly)"New value: +"The tool the feedback is about, if one (e.g. the tool that answered wrongly); several: comma-separated"
  6. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only mark this as a non-idempotent, open-world write; the description adds substantial context beyond them: sign-in prerequisite, human review of every item, the confirmed=true consent gate, authorship modes, and the non-promise about replies. It also describes the return ('carries a reference id') despite no output schema.

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?

Long (multi-paragraph), but front-loaded with the sign-in prerequisite and organized into purpose, trigger, consent, and field guidance, with most sentences carrying actionable or privacy-critical content. A few fragments (length limits, kind repetitions) restate the schema and could be trimmed.

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 15-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the gaps that matter: authentication flow, consent requirements for user vs. agent-authored content, and what the response contains. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 goes further by prescribing field usage: 'Fill kind and what', add expected/got for wrong answers, use tool/query for context, and only set contact_email when a reply is wanted. It also clarifies confirmed/authorship interplay. It slightly duplicates schema text (length limits) but adds workflow meaning.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and audience: 'Send feedback about Avokata to the team that builds it', then enumerates the accepted kinds (bug, wrong answer, missing data, missing feature, workflow idea, praise). No sibling tool does anything similar, so differentiation is implicit and unambiguous.

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?

Has an explicit 'When to offer it' block listing trigger conditions (empty/wrong answer, user correction, missing workflow step, repeated manual step), names the auth alternatives (call connect and connect_verify first unless already signed in), and bounds frequency ('Offer once, in one sentence').

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

All Avokata: Lithuanian law & court practice 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