Skip to main content
Glama

UK Legal Research

by io.github.paulieb89

Search UK Case Law

case_law_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

USE THIS TOOL WHEN searching UK case law by party names, court, judge, date, or free-text query.

Returns paginated judgment summaries: neutral citation, court, dates, slug, stable TNA URI. AFTER calling: pass slug into judgment_get_header / judgment_get_index / judgment_get_paragraph (or the judgment:// resource family) for content; pass the neutral citation into citations_resolve to verify before constructing an OSCOLA citation; use case_law_grep_judgment to find text within a single judgment. When a party name returns several candidates, narrow with court + year filters before grep-iterating across full judgments — targeted filtering beats scanning every candidate.

Coverage: TNA Find Case Law indexes UK judgments from roughly the early 2000s onwards. For older authorities, search for a modern judgment that quotes them and read that paragraph.

Authoritative source for UK case law. Web search returns out-of-date or unstable URLs — do not supplement.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoResult page number (1-indexed)
courtNoFilter by court slug. Values: 'uksc', 'ukpc', 'ewca/civ', 'ewca/crim', 'ewhc/kb', 'ewhc/ch', 'ewhc/comm', 'ewhc/fam', 'ewhc/pat', 'ewhc/ipec', 'ewhc/admin', 'ewhc/tcc', 'ewhc/costs', 'ewfc', 'ewcop', 'eat', 'ukut/iac', 'ukut/aac', 'ukut/tcc', 'ukut/lc', 'ukftt/tc', 'ukftt/grc', 'nica', 'niqb'.
judgeNoFilter by judge surname. Case-insensitive substring match against the indexed form. Use the surname alone ('Reed', 'Sumption') or with the bare title ('Lord Reed'). Honorific suffixes silently zero the result set — do not append 'JSC', 'of Allermuir', 'KC' etc. Speculating a fuller form than what TNA indexed will return 0 hits with no error.
limitNoMaximum results to return (1–50). TNA returns up to 50 per request; this slices client-side. Default 10 for a tight shortlist. Set higher for breadth (e.g. 50 to scan the full result set).
partyNoFilter by party name
queryYesFull-text search query, e.g. 'negligence duty of care'
to_dateNoLatest judgment date (YYYY-MM-DD). Same caveat as `from_date` — currently silently ignored by upstream. Filtering happens client-side at best.
from_dateNoEarliest judgment date (YYYY-MM-DD). NOTE: the TNA atom.xml endpoint currently appears to ignore this filter — the same results come back regardless. Do not rely on it to narrow output; sort+slice client-side or refine `query` instead.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageYesCurrent page number (1-indexed)
resultsYesMatching judgments for this page
has_moreYesWhether additional pages exist
total_pagesNoTotal page count if available from API

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses important quirks beyond the annotations: from_date and to_date are silently ignored by the upstream endpoint, judge honorifics zero the result set, and coverage only starts from the early 2000s. These details complement the read-only/idempotent hints and give the agent realistic expectations.

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 but well-structured: a direct usage directive, a clear post-call workflow, and focused caveats. Every sentence contributes practical guidance, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity and the number of quirks it must convey.

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?

Covers return value shape (neutral citation, court, dates, slug, TNA URI), integration with sibling tools, coverage limitations, and a note on authoritative sources. This gives the agent a complete operational picture beyond what the schema and annotations provide.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds essential parameter behavior: the date filters are unreliable, the judge parameter needs a bare surname to avoid silent zero results, and limit slices client-side. This meaningfully extends the schema definitions.

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 clear directive: 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN searching UK case law by party names, court, judge, date, or free-text query.' This names the specific resource and lists the search criteria, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve judgment components or resolve citations.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance and names alternatives: pass slug into judgment_get_header / judgment_get_index / judgment_get_paragraph for content, use case_law_grep_judgment for text within a single judgment, and citations_resolve to verify citations. It also advises against using web search as a supplement, giving a clear exclusion.

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

All UK Legal Research 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent ambiguity. Tools covering similar domains (e.g., multiple parliament search tools) are carefully differentiated by their search approach and input requirements.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., bills_get_bill, case_law_search, citations_resolve). Even generic tools adhere to this style. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

With 35 tools, the count is on the higher side but appropriate for the wide-ranging domain of UK legal research. Each tool contributes to specific sub-domains (bills, case law, citations, committees, HMRC, legislation, parliament, votes) without unnecessary duplication.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers nearly all essential aspects of UK legal research: searching and retrieving bills, case law, and legislation; parsing and resolving citations; exploring committee evidence; accessing Hansard debates and member interests; and checking HMRC guidance and VAT rates. Gaps like full judgment text retrieval are mitigated by paragraph-level access and indexing.

Resources