Skip to main content
Glama

UK Legal Research

by io.github.paulieb89

Get Judgment Paragraph

judgment_get_paragraph
Read-onlyIdempotent

USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a judgment slug + LegalDocML eId and want that paragraph's full text.

Call judgment_get_index FIRST to discover available eIds (or use case_law_grep_judgment to locate paragraphs by content). Returns the paragraph XML content (400–1,700 tokens typical).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eIdYesParagraph eId from judgment_get_index, e.g. 'para_12'. Numeric strings like '12' are accepted and normalized to 'para_12'.
slugYesJudgment slug, e.g. 'uksc/2024/12'

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description adds value by stating it returns paragraph XML content and a typical token range. It could mention error handling or what happens if eId is invalid, but the key behavior is covered.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds crucial navigational or return-value information. Perfectly sized.

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?

With an output schema present and full annotations, the description still manages to provide essential workflow (call judgment_get_index first) and alternative search method. It is complete for the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and includes a detailed eId description with normalization rule. The description itself doesn't add new parameter details beyond referencing them, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets a judgment paragraph's full text given a slug and eId. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly routing users to judgment_get_index for eIds and case_law_grep_judgment for content-based 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use criteria ('when you have a judgment slug + LegalDocML eId and want that paragraph's full text') and names alternatives (judgment_get_index, case_law_grep_judgment). This is exemplary guidance.

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