Skip to main content
Glama

Nalegalu MCP

by io.github.nalegaluorg

verify_quote

Read-only

Check whether a supplied quote appears in a SAOS judgment.

    Use only after resolving the judgment to a saos_id. This validates
    wording, not whether the quote supports a legal conclusion. Pass the
    saos_id (from search_case_by_signature or related_cases) and
    the fragment as quoted. One call replaces paging through the full
    text: verdict is "exact" (verbatim after normalizing whitespace,
    quote marks and dashes), "near_match" (best passage plus similarity
    score — compare it against the claim), or "not_found" (treat the
    quote as fabricated or misattributed). If ok=false with a fallback
    hint, fetch saos_url with your own web tools instead of retrying.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quoteYes
saos_idYes
min_similarityNo

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?

Beyond readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, the description discloses the exact verdict types ('exact', 'near_match', 'not_found'), the normalization behavior, and the fallback hint logic. This gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect without contradicting annotations.

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, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place—purpose, usage prerequisites, verdicts, and failure handling. No fluff 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?

For a tool with an output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers what it does, when to use it, how to use it, expected verdicts, and fallback behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without further context.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains two parameters directly: 'Pass the saos_id... and the fragment as quoted.' It also implies the role of min_similarity via 'near_match (best passage plus similarity score)'. However, it doesn't explicitly explain how min_similarity is used or how to set it, which is a minor gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check whether a supplied quote appears in a SAOS judgment.' It specifies the resource (SAOS judgment) and the action (verify quote), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on verification rather than retrieval or 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use only after resolving the judgment to a saos_id' and 'Pass the saos_id (from search_case_by_signature or related_cases)'. It also tells when not to retry: 'If ok=false with a fallback hint, fetch saos_url with your own web tools instead of retrying.' This clearly defines usage context and 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