Skip to main content
Glama

Nalegalu MCP

by io.github.nalegaluorg

search_case_by_signature

Read-only

Verify a cited case signature (sygnatura), e.g. "II CSK 448/14".

    Use before relying on a judgment cited by a user or another agent.
    Answers from a local index of all SAOS judgments first; only on a
    local miss does it query live SAOS. Read the verdict field:
    "confirmed" (matches listed with saos_id, court, date, type —
    different courts reuse signatures, so check the court), "not_found"
    (strong evidence the citation is fabricated or wrong),
    "outside_coverage" (administrative courts NSA/WSA are not in SAOS —
    verify in CBOSA instead), "unverified" (local miss and SAOS
    unreachable; do not treat as nonexistent). Optional court_type:
    COMMON, SUPREME, CONSTITUTIONAL_TRIBUNAL, NATIONAL_APPEAL_CHAMBER.
    has_text=false on a match means SAOS stores no text for it, so
    verify_quote cannot check quotes against that judgment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
signatureYes
court_typeNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint: it discloses the local-first then live SAOS query behavior, explains the meaning of each verdict value, and highlights the implication of has_text=false for quote verification. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that directly affects interpretation of results.

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 dense yet compact, front-loaded with the purpose and example, then organized around verdict semantics and caveats. Every sentence adds needed information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 and existence of an output schema, the description fully covers input expectations, output interpretation, edge cases (outside coverage, SAOS unreachable), and limitations (has_text=false). It leaves no significant question unanswered about when and how to use the tool.

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?

The schema provides zero descriptions for parameters, but the description compensates by giving a concrete example for signature and enumerating the accepted court_type values. It does not explicitly explain limit, but its role as a result count is inferable from the name and default, making the gap minor.

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 a specific verb-resource pair, 'Verify a cited case signature', and provides an example format ('II CSK 448/14'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like verify_quote and search_law by focusing on signature verification rather than quote checking or legal search.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use before relying on a judgment cited by a user or another agent') and provides decision rules for each verdict state, including directing users to CBOSA for administrative courts and warning against treating 'unverified' as nonexistent. It also references the sibling tool verify_quote in the context of has_text=false, effectively covering alternatives.

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