Skip to main content
Glama

Nalegalu MCP

by io.github.nalegaluorg

get_article

Read-only

Fetch the exact text of one article (or paragraph) of a Polish legal act.

    Use after search_law or another trusted source supplied the address and
    article key; never guess them. Deterministic lookup by act address
    (e.g. WDU19740240141) and article
    key (e.g. "133" or "Art. 133."). Optional paragraph_key (e.g. "1" or
    "§ 1.") narrows the result to a single paragraph.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes
article_keyYes
paragraph_keyNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, signaling safe read operations. The description adds behavioral context by noting the lookup is deterministic and that users must have a trusted source for parameters. This goes beyond the annotations, though it stops short of explaining error handling or return edge cases.

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 description is compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add necessary detail about usage and parameters without any filler. Every line 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 tool's moderate complexity (3 params, output schema present) and read-only nature, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and all parameter semantics. It also explains relationships to sibling tools, addressing the context in which the tool should be invoked. The output schema handles return-value details.

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?

The schema provides zero description coverage, so the description must compensate—and it does thoroughly. It explains the address with an example (WDU19740240141), the article key with formats ('133' or 'Art. 133.'), and the optional paragraph key ('1' or '§ 1.'), including its narrowing purpose.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the exact text of one article (or paragraph) of a Polish legal act.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_law, which searches, or get_case, which fetches cases.

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?

The description explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use after search_law or another trusted source supplied the address and article key; never guess them.' This is direct usage guidance that also serves as a safety check, and it differentiates the tool from search_law.

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

All Nalegalu MCP toolsInspect
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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search_law and get_article handle statutes, while related_cases, search_case_by_signature, get_case, and verify_quote handle case law, with health for diagnostics. No overlapping boundaries exist.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_article, get_case, search_law, search_case_by_signature, verify_quote), but related_cases and health deviate as noun phrases. The mix is minor and remains predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a legal research server, covering both statutory and case-law workflows without redundancy. Each tool earns its place.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full research lifecycle: searching and retrieving statutes, finding related cases, verifying citations, fetching case details, and validating quotes. No obvious gaps are present.

Resources