Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Global law

by com.lexifina
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check precedent

check_precedent
Read-onlyIdempotent

The judgments the record holds for a provision, each checked: is the text the court applied still the text in force (today, or on a date), and if not, which laws changed it and how? Also checks any one decision by the day it was decided (decided).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "check_precedent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoAn in-force date, YYYY-MM-DD, or "today". Defaults to today.
pathYesA provision file, for example united-states/federal/usc/title-11/1182.md, from find_provision.
decidedNoThe day a decision was made, YYYY-MM-DD, to check that decision too.
case_nameNoOptional, to label the answer.
max_resultsNoRecorded judgments to check, latest first (default 50, at most 500).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / decided / description
      Previous value: -"The day the decision was made, YYYY-MM-DD."New value: +"The day a decision was made, YYYY-MM-DD, to check that decision too."
    • changedInput schema / properties / max_results / description
      Previous value: -"Recorded judgments to check (default 50)."New value: +"Recorded judgments to check, latest first (default 50, at most 500)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"A provision file, for example united-states/federal/usc/title-11/1182.md, germany/bund/acts/grundgesetz/artikel/016a.md or united-kingdom/uk/legislation/uksi/2014/1530/regulation/13.md. Use find_provision to look one up."New value: +"A provision file, for example united-states/federal/usc/title-11/1182.md, from find_provision."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the per-judgment evaluation logic: it compares applied text against text in force at today or a given date and reports which laws intervened. That is genuine behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations; it omits nothing egregious given an output schema exists.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The interrogative phrasing and the trailing 'Also checks any one decision by the day it was decided (decided)' partially restate the schema, which costs a bit of tightness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 5-parameter analytic tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers the main semantic model but leaves `max_results` behavior, the nature of 'the record', and the relationship to sibling tools unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces `decided` as 'check that one decision by its decision day' and frames `date` as today-or-a-date, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the judgments recorded for a provision and checks whether the text each court applied is still in force, plus which laws changed it. Duty is clear, but 'the record holds' is vague about the underlying data source, and no sibling (e.g., provision_history, changes_between) is named for contrast.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: check precedent when you have a provision path and want to know whether cited authority is still good law, or pass `decided` to check one decision. It never names an alternative tool or says when NOT to use this one, leaving routing to inference.

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

All Global law 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