UK Business Tools - Ledgerhall

Get Judgment Paragraph

law_judgment_get_paragraph

Read-onlyIdempotent

USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a judgment slug + LegalDocML eId and want that paragraph's full text.

Call judgment_get_index FIRST to discover available eIds (or use case_law_grep_judgment to locate paragraphs by content). Returns the paragraph XML content (400–1,700 tokens typical).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`eId`	Yes	Paragraph eId from judgment_get_index, e.g. 'para_12'. Numeric strings like '12' are accepted and normalized to 'para_12'.
`slug`	Yes	Judgment slug, e.g. 'uksc/2024/12'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the return type (paragraph XML content) and typical token range (400–1,700 tokens), which is not present in 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the triggering condition, and no unnecessary words. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the availability of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers prerequisites (get_index first), alternatives (grep), return format, and expected size. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions and examples, including normalization of numeric eIds. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' and specifies the exact scope: full text of a paragraph given a judgment slug and LegalDocML eId. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like law_judgment_get_index and law_judgment_get_header.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call judgment_get_index FIRST to discover eIds and mentions case_law_grep_judgment as an alternative for locating paragraphs by content. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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

All UK Business Tools - Ledgerhall 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are well-grouped by domain prefixes (dd_, gov_, law_, prop_) with clear descriptions that differentiate them. However, there is minor overlap, e.g., dd_search could be used instead of individual searches, and dd_fetch versus dedicated profile tools might cause confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with domain-specific prefixes (dd_, gov_, law_, prop_). Names are descriptive and predictable, e.g., dd_charity_search, gov_govuk_search, law_bills_search_bills.

Tool Count4/5

70 tools is high but justified by the broad scope covering due diligence, government, legal, and property domains. Each domain has a reasonable number of tools (about 15-20 each). The count is on the upper end but still manageable.

Completeness5/5

The tool set is comprehensive across all domains: full CRUD for companies and charities, detailed legal research (cases, legislation, parliament, citations), property data (EPC, planning, price paid, rentals), and government information. No obvious gaps for the intended use cases.

Resources

Need Help?