CaseNode Case Law API

Citation network

get_citation_network

Read-only

Explore the citation network around an authority.

Find what cases cite this authority, what it cites, or what's commonly
cited alongside it. Essential for understanding how an authority has
been applied and what it relies on.

Results lead with the most senior court, so the first page shows how the
appellate courts have treated the authority rather than whichever tribunal
happened to cite it most recently.

Args:
    authority_id: Canonical ID of the authority
    direction: "cited_by" (who cites this), "cites" (what this cites),
               or "co_cited" (frequently cited alongside)
    court: Optional court code filter. On a heavily cited authority this is
           far more useful than paging: filter to EWCA-Civ or UKSC.
    limit: Max results (default 20)
    offset: Skip this many, to page past the first `limit` results

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`court`	No
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`direction`	No	cited_by
`authority_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: results are ordered with the most senior court first, so page one reflects appellate treatment rather than recency. It does not address edge cases such as an authority with no citations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action unbounded by preamble, and the ordering caveat sits high enough to influence how an agent reads the first page. The 'Essential for understanding...' line is mildly promotional but still earns its place by naming the use case; the Args block is long but justified by the empty schema descriptions.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and everything an agent needs to call correctly is here: the three traversal directions, court filtering, pagination, and the non-obvious result ordering. Nothing material is missing for a read-only five-parameter traversal tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the whole burden, and it does: all five parameters are documented, including the three literal direction values with plain-language glosses, court-code examples (EWCA-Civ, UKSC), and the semantics of limit/offset. It also explains the practical trade-off between court filtering and paging.

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?

The opening sentence names a specific verb and resource, and the follow-up enumerates the three modes precisely: 'what cases cite this authority, what it cites, or what's commonly cited alongside it.' That is far more specific than the title alone, though no sibling tool (e.g. get_citation_subgraph, get_related_authorities) is named to draw the boundary explicitly.

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 states the analytical purpose ('understanding how an authority has been applied and what it relies on') and gives concrete operational guidance: on a heavily cited authority, filtering by court beats paging. That covers when to use it, but there is no explicit when-not, and no routing guidance against the overlapping citation siblings.

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

All CaseNode Case Law API tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?