caselaw

caselaw_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Full-text search of 197,000+ Pakistani judgments (Supreme Court & High Courts, 1970–2025).

Ranking follows how lawyers research: nearness to the legal point decides which cases are
returned; among comparably-near cases, more senior court > larger bench > more recent >
more cited. Use sort='newest' when you need the current state of the law (later judgments
supersede as statutes are amended), or sort='court' for the most authoritative first.

Returns ranked cases with id, title, citation, court, year, a snippet, and the public URL.
For an exact report citation use caselaw_lookup_citation. To read a case, pass its id to
caselaw_get_case.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals the ranking algorithm, coverage scope, return fields, and sort semantics. It also clarifies the superseding-law rationale, enriching the agent's understanding of tool behavior.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with scope, then ranking rationale, sort usage, return shape, and sibling pointers—each sentence earns its place without padding or redundancy.

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?

Covers jurisdiction, date range, ranking, sort options, return fields, and cross-tool flow. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to restate return types; the description supplies the behavioral context that structured data cannot.

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?

The schema covers sort and query with descriptions, but the tool description adds nuanced meaning for sort values ('newest' for amended statutes, 'court' for authority). It does not detail limit/offset/response_format, but these have clear schema defaults and are secondary. Given low schema coverage overall, this partial compensation justifies a 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search of 197,000+ Pakistani judgments (Supreme Court & High Courts, 1970–2025).' It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly routing exact citations to caselaw_lookup_citation and case reading to caselaw_get_case.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance for sort options ('Use sort='newest' when you need the current state of the law... sort='court' for the most authoritative first') and clearly names alternatives for citation lookup and retrieving full cases.

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

All caselaw 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: fetching a case by ID, searching full-text, resolving a citation, traversing the citation graph forward or backward, and listing landmark cases. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the caselaw_ prefix and mostly follow a verb-first pattern (get_case, get_citations, get_cited_by, lookup_citation, search). The exception is caselaw_most_cited, which uses an adjective phrase rather than a verb, causing a minor inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a legal research server. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The read-only domain of case law research is well covered: search, retrieval, citation lookup, and both directions of citation traversal are present. The landmark listing provides an entry point, and there are no obvious dead ends in the research flow.

Resources

Need Help?