Skip to main content
Glama

UK Legal Research

by io.github.paulieb89

Get Case Citation Network

citations_network
Read-onlyIdempotent

USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a judgment slug and want to map every citation it makes — cases cited, legislation referenced, SIs, retained EU law.

Fetches the judgment XML from TNA and parses all OSCOLA citations within. Returns citations grouped by type, deduplicated and sorted. AFTER calling, pass any individual citation through citations_resolve to confirm it resolves and to retrieve its canonical URL.

Useful for authority-network analysis (what did this judgment rely on?) and for surfacing the legislative landscape a case sits inside.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
case_uriYesTNA judgment URI slug, e.g. 'uksc/2024/12' or 'ewca/civ/2023/450'. Use the 'uri' field from case_law_search results — not the full URL. Do not include the 'https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/' prefix.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eu_refsNoRetained EU law references, e.g. 'Regulation (EU) 2016/679'
si_refsNoStatutory Instrument references, e.g. 'SI 2018/1234'
case_uriYesThe judgment URI that was fetched and parsed
law_report_refsNoLaw report citations, e.g. '[2020] 1 WLR 100'
total_citationsYesSum of all de-duplicated citations across every bucket
legislation_refsNoLegislation section references, e.g. 's.47 Companies Act 2006'
neutral_citationsNoNeutral citations referenced, e.g. '[2020] UKSC 14'

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior details: fetching judgment XML from TNA, parsing OSCOLA citations, grouping by type, deduplicating, and sorting. It also discloses that the tool does not resolve citations, which is a key behavioral limitation.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the usage condition and is organized into three focused paragraphs. All sentences contribute useful context, though the format is slightly more verbose than necessary for the information conveyed.

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?

The description covers the input precondition (judgment slug), what the tool does (parse TNA XML for OSCOLA citations), output characteristics (grouped, deduplicated, sorted), and follow-up action (use citations_resolve). With an output schema present, it is fully complete for this tool's complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema description for case_uri is thorough (slug format, use 'uri' field, no prefix), providing 100% coverage. The description only reiterates the concept of a 'judgment slug' without adding new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 maps all citations a judgment makes, including cases, legislation, SIs, and retained EU law. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the network-wide mapping and integration with citations_resolve.

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?

It explicitly starts with 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a judgment slug and want to map every citation it makes' and directs the user to pass citations through citations_resolve after. This provides clear when-to-use and a follow-up alternative, aligning with the sibling tool's purpose.

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