Meta Council

Ask Legal

ask_legal

Read-onlyIdempotent

Request fixed legacy Themis source/citation records and attach a proposed Laws & Regulations agent/source/synthesis plan whose routes are planned_not_run. Check the law uses fixed legacy provider-record retrieval, but returned records do not prove exact citation identity, relevance, authority, or corpus coverage. Generated research requires authentication, exact THEMIS_NEUTRAL_SCHEMA_VERSION=themis_neutral_research/v1, the operator gate, a verified authenticated corpus manifest, and an atomic spend reservation. The manifest verifier is not available yet, so generated mode remains disabled. Provider assertions/gaps are enum codes linked to evidence whose quote-fidelity state is provider-reported and rendered with fixed server text; any legacy verdict or answer prose is withheld. Returns legal_evidence_graph/v1. Automated research only, not legal advice. Requires legal:run.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`context`	No	Optional factual context; treated as unverified input. The normalized question plus context must fit 2,000 characters total.
`domains`	No	Optional domain hints such as OSHA, building_codes, or sports_regulation.
`quality`	No	Policy for proposed, unexecuted model-quality and reasoning-effort routes.	balanced
`question`	Yes	Laws or regulations research question (no credentials or secrets). After normalized context is appended, the combined provider question must fit 2,000 characters.
`jurisdiction`	No	Request hint forwarded to the legacy provider; it does not prove corpus coverage.	auto
`max_sections`	No	Optional maximum number of provider-returned source/citation records.
`research_mode`	No	Fixed legacy provider-record retrieval or an explicit request for fail-closed, neutral Themis generation.	check_law
`model_overrides`	No	Optional model-id overrides for proposed, unexecuted agent routes.
`requested_agents`	No	Up to seven catalog agent additions for the proposed plan; one of the eight total agent slots is reserved for its baseline agent.
`reasoning_effort_overrides`	No	Optional effort overrides for proposed, unexecuted agent routes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: generated research is disabled, returned records do not prove citation identity/relevance/authority/coverage, answer prose is withheld, and authentication (legal:run) plus exact schema version requirements are needed. This is rich behavioral context that helps the agent understand side effects and limitations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a dense, run-on paragraph with many technical caveats and clauses. While information-dense, it lacks clear structure and is not concise. The first sentence does state the purpose, but the rest becomes a wall of text, making it harder for an agent to quickly parse the essential behavioral constraints.

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?

The description is comprehensive given the tool's complexity: it covers the functional modes, authentication requirements, the disabled generation path, the nature of returned records, the output schema, and the non-advice disclaimer. Since an output schema exists, it needn't describe return values in detail, and this description fills all necessary gaps.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds value by explaining that research_mode='themis' is effectively non-functional and that the output plan's routes are 'planned_not_run', which clarifies parameter intent beyond the schema. This extra semantics nudges the score to 4.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Request fixed legacy Themis source/citation records and attach a proposed Laws & Regulations agent/source/synthesis plan' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only legal research tool, and explicitly mentions the output type (legal_evidence_graph/v1).

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?

The description provides clear context on usage: it notes that 'check_law' mode uses fixed legacy provider-record retrieval, while 'themis' generated mode is disabled due to the missing manifest verifier. It also states 'Automated research only, not legal advice,' which clarifies the tool's intended scope. Although it doesn't name alternative tools, none of the siblings are legal-related, so the guidance is sufficient.

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

All Meta Council tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action, with detailed descriptions that clearly separate overlapping domains (e.g., consulting vs. marketing vs. outreach). Even within the same domain, tools like 'create_consulting_deliverable' and 'create_consulting_document_revision' are unambiguous due to their specific nouns.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., 'create_invoice', 'get_deal', 'list_agents'). The few exceptions like 'locus_determine_from_scores' still adhere to the verb_noun structure and do not break the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 124 tools, the server is massively over-scoped for typical MCP use. The tool count far exceeds the '50+ extreme mismatch' threshold, making it nearly impossible for an agent to efficiently navigate or select the right tool without extensive context. Even a large platform should consolidate or expose fewer tools.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers CRUD and lifecycle operations across at least 10 domains (sales, consulting, marketing, outreach, accounting, workflows, ticketing, API keys, feedback, platform metrics). Each domain appears to have no obvious gaps—e.g., invoicing includes create, update, send, mark paid, void; ticketing includes create, update, archive, dependencies, batch, scenarios, validation.

Resources

Need Help?