Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Avokata: Lithuanian law & court practice

by com.avokata
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Verify a citation and quote

verify_citation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Sign-in required: call connect(email) and connect_verify first (free, one email) unless this connection is already signed in. Check a citation SOMEBODY ELSE produced - a model, an opposing brief, a draft memo. Answers three questions separately and never merges them: does the provision (straipsnis) or the case (byla / nutartis) exist, does it actually say the sentence attributed to it (pass quote), and is the act still in force (galioja). A case this corpus does not hold is reported as not held, never as non-existent. ONE citation per call, as written: CK 6.217 str. 2 d., XII-2603 58 str., e3K-3-105-684/2019, 40 p.; for a list, call once per citation. An act without an article (XII-2603 alone) is not a pinpoint: the answer names the act and how to read the article. Pass on_date for the relevant date and copy the attributed sentence into quote; without a quote this does not check the sentence somebody wrote. Missing dated wording is not confirmation. Example arguments: {"citation": "CK 6.217 str. 2 d.", "on_date": "2024-01-15"}.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quoteNoThe sentence the draft attributes to that provision. Supplying it turns 'does this provision exist' into 'does it say this', which is the question worth asking. On a ruling the answer lists EVERY place the sentence is found (`matches`), each with whose words it is (`voice`: the court's own, a party's argument the court recounts, a lower court's, an institution's, or an earlier ruling the court restates; `mixed` with `fragments` when the sentence runs across speakers), and near-identical wording elsewhere in the ruling (`similar_passages`). A quote not found word for word but at least 0.7 similar is `found_paraphrased`, with both texts side by side; the closest match always says whose words it is, and `headline` says first when they are not the court's. A cited paragraph that differs from where the text is (`40 p.` vs `39 p.`) is named in `cited_vs_found`. On an act, `quote` is graded: `found` (word for word), `paraphrase_supported` (the provision says this in other words: quote `quote_match.passage`, not the paraphrase) or `not_found_in_provision` (with `quote_differs_in` when a number or a negation is what differs).
on_dateNoCheck the quote against the law on this date, `YYYY-MM-DD`, rather than today: a part inserted or amended after it answers not_in_force_on_date or wording_changed_after_date, naming the amending law.
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.
citationYesThe citation exactly as it appears in the text you are checking - `CK 6.217 str. 2 d.`, `JANĮ 13 straipsnio 2 dalies 1 punktas`, `CK 3.192¹ str.` (also `3.192(1)`, `3.192-1`), or a ruling with its paragraph: `e3K-3-196-313/2022, 40 p.`. Abbreviated and full forms both parse.
jurisdictionNoWhich jurisdiction to read the citation against (`LT`). Omit for the account's own.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / quote / description
      Previous value: -"The sentence the draft attributes to that provision. Supplying it turns 'does this provision exist' into 'does it say this', which is the question worth asking. On a ruling the answer lists EVERY place the sentence is found (`matches`), each with whose words it is (`voice`: the court's own, a party's argument the court recounts, a lower court's, an institution's, or an earlier ruling the court restates; `mixed` with `fragments` when the sentence runs across speakers), and near-identical wording elsewhere in the ruling (`similar_passages`). A quote not found word for word but at least 0.7 similar is `found_paraphrased`, with both texts side by side; the closest match always says whose words it is, and `headline` says first when they are not the court's. A cited paragraph that differs from where the text is (`40 p.` vs `39 p.`) is named in `cited_vs_found`."New value: +"The sentence the draft attributes to that provision. Supplying it turns 'does this provision exist' into 'does it say this', which is the question worth asking. On a ruling the answer lists EVERY place the sentence is found (`matches`), each with whose words it is (`voice`: the court's own, a party's argument the court recounts, a lower court's, an institution's, or an earlier ruling the court restates; `mixed` with `fragments` when the sentence runs across speakers), and near-identical wording elsewhere in the ruling (`similar_passages`). A quote not found word for word but at least 0.7 similar is `found_paraphrased`, with both texts side by side; the closest match always says whose words it is, and `headline` says first when they are not the court's. A cited paragraph that differs from where the text is (`40 p.` vs `39 p.`) is named in `cited_vs_found`. On an act, `quote` is graded: `found` (word for word), `paraphrase_supported` (the provision says this in other words: quote `quote_match.passage`, not the paraphrase) or `not_found_in_provision` (with `quote_differs_in` when a number or a negation is what differs)."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: auth requirements, the deliberate refusal to merge the three answers, the 'not held vs non-existent' reporting rule, the single-citation constraint, and the distinction between missing dated wording and confirmation. This is substantive behavioral context an agent could not derive from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the sign-in prerequisite and the one-citation rule, and nearly every sentence carries usable instruction. It is dense and slightly repetitive of the schema on citation formats and quote handles, but the length is largely earned for a tool with this much answering behavior.

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 carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates the return fields (matches, voice, fragments, similar_passages, found_paraphrased, cited_vs_found, quote_differs_in) and the act-level grades. An agent knows what it will get back and how to interpret it.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents quote grading, voice/fragments, and citation formats in depth, so the description largely restates it. It adds a little value with example arguments and the 'copy the attributed sentence into quote' instruction, but this is baseline territory when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Names a specific verb and resource ('Check a citation SOMEBODY ELSE produced') and scopes it precisely: it validates a third-party citation's existence, wording and currency. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as check_validity or compare_provision_versions, so the agent must infer whether this or check_validity is the right entry point.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (citations a model, opposing brief or draft memo produced), prerequisites (sign-in via connect/connect_verify unless already connected), and per-item calling convention ('ONE citation per call... for a list, call once per citation'). It also states when to supply quote and on_date and what is lost without them.

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