Amalgix

Review Contract Risks

review_contract_risks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Crucible™ Contract Risk Intelligence for contracts, MSAs, NDAs, procurement agreements, and compliance documents. Extracts risk clauses, obligations, deadlines, liability exposure, missing terms, unusual clauses, evidence, and human-review flags. Not legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`depth`	No	Analysis depth hint. Default: standard.
`focus`	No	Optional focus area for the contract review.
`query`	No	Optional focus area. Default reviews payment, termination, liability, confidentiality, jurisdiction, renewal, obligations, deadlines, missing terms, and evidence.
`format`	No	Optional input format override. Default: auto.
`content`	No	Contract, MSA, NDA, procurement agreement, vendor agreement, compliance document, or Base64 file content. Required unless fileUrl is provided.
`fileUrl`	No	Optional HTTPS URL to a public contract/document file. Max 20MB.
`sourceType`	No	Optional source type metadata. Default: text or file_url.
`contractType`	No	Contract type hint. Default: other.
`jurisdiction`	No	Optional jurisdiction metadata. Output is evidence triage and not legal advice.
`partyPerspective`	No	Review perspective for risk triage. Default: neutral.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meta`	Yes
`analysis`	Yes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, listing extracted elements (risk clauses, obligations, etc.) and clarifying non-legal advice. Annotations already indicate safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and caveat. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Description adequately summarizes tool function given the existence of a comprehensive output schema and full parameter descriptions. Could briefly mention that content can be provided via text or URL, but not essential.

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%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description does not elaborate on parameters, relying fully on schema for semantics.

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?

Description clearly states it's for contract risk analysis and lists specific documents and extracted items. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'analyze_document', which could cause ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_document' or 'extract_web'. The description fails to provide context for appropriate selection.

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

All Amalgix 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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain or action: document analysis, financial filings, contract review, translation, web extraction, summarization, cost estimation, and health check. Overlap is minimal and explicitly disambiguated in descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., analyze_document, extract_web), making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a general-purpose AI toolkit, covering analysis, translation, extraction, summarization, and utilities without excess or deficiency.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows for document analysis, filings, contracts, translation, web extraction, and summarization. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for editing or managing stored analyses), but the set is complete for its intended purpose.

Resources

Need Help?