Skip to main content
Glama

check_citations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Finds where a quoted passage comes from (paste the quotation alone, ≤ 3,000 characters, original language). Check each result against the source (link provided). Returns texts and decisions containing it, with a match % (100 = word for word, ignoring punctuation, case, accents) and word differences. Statuses: trouve; trouve_avec_differences; non_trouve (database may be incomplete); trop_court; trop_courant; indetermine (sources timed out: retry). textes_d_origine = statutory sources; repris_dans = decisions quoting it; otherwise decisions, oldest first. Covers codes and statutes (version_du), JO, collective agreements, all French case law, ECHR, CJEU, CNIL, doctrine, professional codes, EU acts in force (note_textes_europeens). Article references in the text are listed, unchecked, with their get_law_article call.

Example: check_citations(text="Les obligations naissent d'actes juridiques, de faits juridiques ou de l'autorité seule de la loi.")

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesthe quotation alone (a sentence or a paragraph), 3,000 characters at most.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / text / description
      Previous value: -"la citation seule (une phrase ou un paragraphe), 3 000 caractères au plus."New value: +"the quotation alone (a sentence or a paragraph), 3,000 characters at most."
  2. Added
  3. Removed
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / text / description
      Previous value: -"texte libre (projet d'acte, paragraphe, liste de références), 50 000 caractères au plus."New value: +"la citation seule (une phrase ou un paragraphe), 3 000 caractères au plus."
  5. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / text
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "texte libre (projet d'acte, paragraphe, liste de références), 50 000 caractères au plus.",
      +  "title": "Text",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • removedInput schema / properties / texte
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Texte libre (projet d'acte, paragraphe, liste de références), 50 000 caractères au plus.",
      -  "title": "Texte",
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "texte"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "text"
      +]
    • changedInput schema / title
      Previous value: -"citations_verifierArguments"New value: +"check_citationsArguments"
    • changedOutput schema / title
      Previous value: -"citations_verifierDictOutput"New value: +"check_citationsDictOutput"
  6. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description discloses matching behavior, word-difference reporting, status semantics including timeout retry, incomplete database caveat, ordering of decisions, and source coverage. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The definition is dense but front-loaded, starting with purpose and key input rules before returning status and coverage details. Every sentence carries relevant information for correct invocation and interpretation, with no filler.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema, the description provides enough semantic context about statuses, returned fields, coverage, and timeout handling for an agent to use the tool correctly. It is complete for a one-parameter quotation-checking tool with this complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the text parameter. The description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema, including that the quotation should be in its original language and provides a concrete example invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it finds where a quoted passage comes from. It also scopes the task clearly with the quotation-only input and distinguishes the tool from generic search siblings by focusing on source attribution for a quotation.

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?

It gives clear usage instructions: paste the quotation alone, check each result against the provided source link, and use the listed get_law_article call for article references. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives such as search_case_law or search_decisions_citing.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources