Skip to main content
Glama

UK Legal Research

by io.github.paulieb89

Get Judgment Header

judgment_get_header
Read-onlyIdempotent

USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a judgment slug and need metadata (parties, judges, neutral citation, court, dates).

Call case_law_search FIRST to get the slug. AFTER calling, use judgment_get_index to discover paragraphs, then judgment_get_paragraph to read specific ones. Authoritative source for UK judgment metadata.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesJudgment slug, e.g. 'uksc/2024/12' or 'ewca/civ/2023/450'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. Description adds useful context about being the authoritative source for UK judgment metadata, and the workflow context. No contradiction or hidden behavior disclosed, but adds value beyond 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN', each sentence earns its place: usage trigger, workflow, authority. No redundancy or fluff.

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 a single parameter, full schema coverage, output schema present, and strong annotations, the description covers the workflow, tool distinction, and metadata scope. Complete for a simple read-only tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description and examples for the 'slug' parameter. The description adds the context of needing a slug from case_law_search but doesn't provide new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'get metadata' for a judgment header, with explicit list of metadata types (parties, judges, neutral citation, court, dates). Clearly distinguishes from siblings judgment_get_index and judgment_get_paragraph by focusing on header metadata vs paragraphs.

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: 'when you have a judgment slug and need metadata'. Provides workflow: call case_law_search first, then use judgment_get_index/paragraph. Naming alternatives and prerequisite tools makes usage context unambiguous.

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