A connector providing AI assistants searchable access to climate-aligned contract clauses, glossary terms, and practical guides from The Chancery Lane Project's curated knowledge graph.
Scored across 6 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, and the descriptions proactively disambiguate the risky pairs: entity_lookup (deterministic name match) vs search (semantic/BM25), and find_legal_resources (list/filter) vs get_legal_resource (single by work_id). taxonomy_content vs taxonomy_facets is cleanly split into query vs discovery. An agent can route confidently without overlap risk.
All names are snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun (find_legal_resources, get_legal_resource, taxonomy_content, taxonomy_facets). Minor deviations: the bare verb `search`, the noun-first `entity_lookup`, and inconsistent verbs (find vs get vs list) for related operations. Readable and predictable overall.
Six tools neatly cover the server's surface: name lookup, free-text search, taxonomy discovery, taxonomy filtering, legal-resource listing, and legal-resource detail. Each tool earns its place with no redundancy or padding.
Core workflows (search, name lookup, facet browse, legal resource retrieval) are covered with paging and full-text options. The main gap is a direct `get_content` by clause/guide id — ids appear in taxonomy_content/search results but must be re-fetched via search rather than retrieved directly. Minor, workable gap.
Find TCLP content (clauses, glossary terms, guides) associated with a named concept.
Unlike `search`, this performs a deterministic name match against Entity nodes in
the knowledge graph rather than a relevance-ranked semantic search. Use it when
you have a specific term or concept (e.g. "scope 3 emissions", "net zero") and
want to retrieve every clause or glossary entry that explicitly references it.
Args:
name: The entity or concept name to look up (exact match, case-insensitive).
limit: Maximum number of results to return (1–50).
include_full_text: Include each hit's full body text (Markdown). Off by
default — bodies are large; request only when you need the content,
and prefer a small `limit` when you do.
Returns:
JSON with "meta" and "results" where each hit includes the source content
node, its plain-text `summary` (null when it has none) and the entity
names that matched.
Each hit's "references" lists the instruments it cites: pass a
reference's `work_id` to `get_legal_resource` for details. A reference's
`edge` (governs, references, describes) says how the content relates to
the instrument; it is not a statement of the instrument's legal effect.
An empty list means the hit cites no instruments. null with "lrsf" in
meta.degraded means references could not be loaded: do not conclude
that the hit cites no instruments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| include_full_text | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | |
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only cover read-only/open-world safety, but the description adds substantial behavior: exact case-insensitive matching, the body-text cost tradeoff with `include_full_text`, and a critical degraded-mode caveat ('null with "lrsf" in meta.degraded means references could not be loaded: do not conclude that the hit cites no instruments'). It also warns that `edge` semantics are not a statement of legal effect, preventing a plausible misinterpretation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Purpose and the sibling contrast are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is exactly right. The Returns block is longer than necessary given an output schema already exists, though it earns part of its length with the non-obvious degraded-mode and `edge` caveats.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a three-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers matching semantics, result shape, cross-tool handoff ('pass a reference's `work_id` to `get_legal_resource`'), and failure modes. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret results is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: `name` is exact case-insensitive match, `limit` is bounded 1-50 (schema also enforces this), and `include_full_text` is off by default with an explicit rationale ('bodies are large; request only when you need the content'). Each parameter gains meaning beyond its type declaration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Find TCLP content... associated with a named concept') and enumerates the content types it covers (clauses, glossary terms, guides). It explicitly contrasts itself with the `search` sibling via 'deterministic name match against Entity nodes... rather than a relevance-ranked semantic search', so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Directly names the alternative ('Unlike `search`...') and states the selecting condition: use this when you have a specific term or concept and want every clause or glossary entry referencing it. That is an explicit when-to-use plus an implicit when-not-to-use (fuzzy/conceptual queries belong to `search`).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find the laws, regulations, standards, frameworks and guidance that TCLP content refers to.
This is not a general legal database: it holds only the instruments that TCLP
clauses, guides and glossary terms cite.
Status "stub": identity confirmed, metadata minimal; a null or empty field means
not yet recorded, not that it does not apply.
On a stub, `nature` may be an unreviewed inference, and is often null. Do not
fill in missing fields from your own knowledge, and do not state an
instrument's legal effect.
A filter on nature, sector or bindingness excludes works where that field is
not recorded. Most works do not record these yet, so an empty result does not
mean that TCLP content cites no such instrument; prefer `query` or
`jurisdiction`.
Args:
query: Case-insensitive substring match on name and aliases (e.g. "CSRD"),
at most 200 characters. An exact name or alias match ranks first.
nature: Any of "legislation", "regulation", "standard", "framework", "guidance".
jurisdiction: Jurisdiction slugs, matched exactly: lower-case letters,
digits and hyphens (e.g. "european-union"). Get valid values from
`taxonomy_facets(scope="legal_resource")`.
sector: Sector slugs, matched exactly: lower-case letters, digits and
hyphens. Get valid values from `taxonomy_facets(scope="legal_resource")`.
bindingness: Any of "binding", "comply_or_explain", "voluntary", "depends".
Each list filter takes at most 20 values.
limit: Maximum results (1–100, default 20).
offset: Result offset for paging (0–10000, default 0).
Returns:
JSON with "meta" (total_available, limit, offset) and "results" (one entry
per instrument, with `work_id` for `get_legal_resource` and `citing_count`).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| nature | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| sector | No | ||
| bindingness | No | ||
| jurisdiction | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | |
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false; the description goes far beyond by explaining stub records, that null/empty means 'not yet recorded' rather than 'not applicable', that `nature` on a stub may be unreviewed inference, and that filters silently exclude works with unrecorded fields. It also instructs the agent not to fabricate missing fields or assert legal effect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loads scope, then caveats, then args, then returns – a clean progression with no filler. Minor redundancy: the query length cap and the nature/bindingness enums restate constraints already present in the schema, and the Returns section is somewhat unnecessary given an output schema exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter, zero-required, open-world search tool, everything an agent needs is present: scope limits, record-maturity semantics, filter pitfalls with a workaround, valid-value sources, and pagination/return shape. Nothing material is left to inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does so: query is a case-insensitive substring on name and aliases with exact-match ranking and a 200-char cap, jurisdiction/sector are exact-match slugs with a source for valid values, bindingness enumerates its four values, and limit/offset ranges are stated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (find) and resource (laws, regulations, standards, frameworks, guidance cited by TCLP content), and explicitly scopes it against the obvious misinterpretation ("not a general legal database"). It also points at the sibling get_legal_resource via work_id, so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives explicit when-to-use guidance and alternatives: use taxonomy_facets to obtain valid jurisdiction/sector slugs, prefer `query` or `jurisdiction` when a field-based filter returns empty, and use get_legal_resource for a full record. It even warns that an empty filtered result is not evidence of absence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get one law, regulation, standard, framework or guidance, and the TCLP content citing it.
Versions are not tracked yet, so every citation has `staleness: "unpinned"`:
the content cites the instrument without naming a version. There is no
description yet; do not supply one from your own knowledge, and do not state
the instrument's legal effect.
Args:
work_id: The instrument's `work_id`, from `find_legal_resources` or from a
search result's "references".
citing_limit: Maximum citing content items to return (1–100, default 20).
Returns:
JSON with "resource", "citing" (each with id, title, url, content_type,
edge, staleness) and "citing_total". `edge` (governs, references,
describes) says how the content relates to the instrument; it is not a
statement of the instrument's legal effect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| work_id | Yes | ||
| citing_limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | |
| citing | Yes | |
| resource | Yes | |
| citing_total | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: versions are untracked so every citation carries staleness 'unpinned', there is no description field and the agent must not fabricate one, and the agent must not assert legal effect. It also explains the 'edge' relation semantics, which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot supply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with purpose, then caveats, then explicit Args and Returns sections. Despite its length, every sentence conveys a distinct constraint (staleness, no-fabrication rule, no-legal-effect rule, edge semantics) rather than padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists and returns need not be described, the description still enumerates the return keys (resource, citing, citing_total, edge, staleness) and flags the staleness caveat an agent would otherwise misread. For a read-only lookup with two parameters, nothing material is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so well: it explains that work_id is the instrument's identifier sourced from find_legal_resources or a search result's references, and that citing_limit caps citing items (1–100, default 20). It does not restate the maxLength constraint, but the semantics added are meaningful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get one law, regulation, standard, framework or guidance, and the TCLP content citing it.' It also clarifies the secondary payload (citing content), which cleanly distinguishes it from the plural sibling find_legal_resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It routes the agent by stating where work_id comes from — 'from find_legal_resources or from a search result's "references"' — which implicitly tells the agent this is a follow-up lookup rather than a search entry point. It stops short of an explicit when-not statement, so it is clear context without full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the TCLP knowledge graph using fusion search (semantic + BM25).
Args:
query: Free-text search query (max 1000 characters).
node_type: Content scope — "tclp" (clauses, glossary terms, guides) or "all".
Laws, regulations, standards and frameworks are not searchable here:
use `find_legal_resources`.
content_type: Return only one content type: "clause", "glossary_term" or
"guide". Omit to search every type.
limit: Maximum number of results to return (1–50).
rerank: Whether to apply RRF reranking when combining graph and text results.
include_full_text: Include each hit's full body text (Markdown). Off by
default — bodies are large; request only when you need the content,
and prefer a small `limit` when you do.
Returns:
JSON with "meta" (totals, timing) and "results" (ranked hits with title,
url, content_type, scores, summary, optionally relationships_text,
related and full_text). `summary` is short plain text: the clause
summary, the first paragraph of a glossary definition, or a guide's
excerpt. It is null when the item has none.
Each hit's "references" lists the instruments it cites: pass a
reference's `work_id` to `get_legal_resource` for details. A reference's
`edge` (governs, references, describes) says how the content relates to
the instrument; it is not a statement of the instrument's legal effect.
An empty list means the hit cites no instruments. null with "lrsf" in
meta.degraded means references could not be loaded: do not conclude
that the hit cites no instruments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| rerank | No | ||
| node_type | No | all | |
| content_type | No | ||
| include_full_text | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | |
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot: full-text payload size and default, the RRF rerank behavior, and a degraded-mode caveat that null references plus `lrsf` in meta.degraded must not be read as 'cites no instruments'. That last point actively prevents a wrong inference.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Long but tightly structured: a one-line purpose statement followed by Args and Returns blocks, with the routing constraint front-loaded before the parameter list. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; nothing is filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a six-parameter hybrid search tool with a null-coverage schema, the definition covers query semantics, scope control, defaults, output shape, cross-tool handoffs (get_legal_resource, find_legal_resources), and a degraded-response edge case. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: it defines each of the six parameters, including enum values for node_type/content_type, the 1–50 limit bound, the 1000-character query cap, the default-off behavior of include_full_text, and the purpose of rerank.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening line states a specific verb (Search), a specific resource (the TCLP knowledge graph), and the retrieval mechanism (fusion search, semantic + BM25). It also carves out what is NOT in this index and names the sibling that handles it (find_legal_resources), so an agent can route without opening schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit when-not guidance: laws, regulations, standards and frameworks are not searchable here and should go to `find_legal_resources`. It also gives operational guidance for include_full_text (off by default because bodies are large; use a small limit when requesting them).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List TCLP content (clauses, guides) or legal resources filtered by taxonomy facet=value.
Multi-facet filters are combined with AND. Call `taxonomy_facets` first
to learn which facet names and slugs exist; using a name not in that
list returns a 400.
Args:
filters: Mapping of facet name to value slug, e.g.
`{"sector": "real-estate", "practice_area": "commercial"}`.
Each facet may appear at most once.
scope: `clause` (ClauseName only), `guide` (Guide only), `legal_resource`
(laws, regulations, standards and frameworks; facets `jurisdiction`
and `sector` only), or `all` (clauses and guides, the default).
limit: Maximum results to return (1–100, default 25).
offset: Result offset for paging (default 0).
sort: `title`, `date_published_desc`, or `date_modified_desc`.
Returns:
JSON with "meta" (totals, scope, filters echoed back) and "results"
(each hit has `id`, `url`, `title`, `content_type`, dates,
`summary` (the clause summary or guide excerpt as plain text, null for
legal resources), and a
`facets` map of all taxonomy arrays on the node). `content_type` is
`clause`, `guide` or `legal_resource`, the same values that `search`
returns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | title | |
| limit | No | ||
| scope | No | all | |
| offset | No | ||
| filters | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | |
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations only covering the safety profile, the description adds substantial behavior: multi-facet filters combine with AND, each facet may appear at most once, invalid facet names return 400, and scope=legal_resource silently restricts usable facets to jurisdiction and sector. These are non-obvious constraints an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with purpose, then cleanly sectioned into Args and Returns; every line is content-bearing. The Returns block is somewhat lengthy and partially overlaps with the existing output schema, which is mild redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a multi-parameter, nested-object, paged query tool, the description covers inputs, scope semantics, error conditions, and result shape, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly. Nothing material is left to inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains filters as a facet-name-to-slug map with an example, defines each scope enum value and its facet restrictions, gives limit bounds and default, offset paging, and the meaning of each sort value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (list) plus the resources covered (TCLP clauses, guides, legal resources) and the filtering mechanism (taxonomy facet=value). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like search and find_legal_resources, which are not facet-driven listings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow ('Call taxonomy_facets first') and the failure mode if ignored (400 on unknown facet name), which is strong usage guidance. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over the sibling search tool, so it falls short of full alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List taxonomy facets and their value slugs across TCLP content.
Facets are taxonomy categories like `sector`, `practice_area`,
`application`, and `jurisdiction`. Each facet returns the list of slugs
that actually appear on the graph, with counts. Use this to discover
the vocabulary, then call `taxonomy_content` with chosen slugs.
Args:
scope: Which labels to include — `clause` (ClauseName only), `guide`
(Guide only), `legal_resource` (laws, regulations, standards and
frameworks; facets `jurisdiction` and `sector` only), or `all`
(clauses and guides, the default).
Returns:
JSON with "meta" and "facets". Each facet has `name`, `applies_to`
(list of Neo4j labels carrying it), and `values` (list of
`{slug, count}`, sorted by count desc).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | all |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | |
| facets | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: facets are filtered by graph labels, counts reflect slugs that 'actually appear on the graph', and legal_resource scope is restricted to jurisdiction/sector facets only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with purpose then Args/Returns, with little waste. The Returns section partly restates what the output schema would provide, but it also clarifies that values are count-sorted, so it mostly earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter discovery tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, workflow routing, scope semantics, and return shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (only an enum with no descriptions), so the description must carry semantics. It defines all four scope values, including the non-obvious restriction that legal_resource yields only jurisdiction and sector facets, and gives the default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List taxonomy facets and their value slugs') with the scope of content it covers ('across TCLP content'). It also names the sibling it feeds into ('then call taxonomy_content'), so an agent can distinguish it from related taxonomy tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly prescribes the workflow: use this to discover the vocabulary, then call taxonomy_content with chosen slugs. That is a clear when-to-use statement plus a named alternative, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
entity_lookup1 field changedOutput schema / $defs / _EntityHit / properties / summaryAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Summary"
+}search2 fields changedInput schema / properties / content_typeAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "enum": [
+ "clause",
+ "glossary_term",
+ "guide"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Content Type"
+}Output schema / $defs / _SearchHit / properties / summaryAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Summary"
+}taxonomy_content1 field changedOutput schema / $defs / _TaxonomyContentHit / properties / summaryAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Summary"
+}entity_lookup6 fields changedInput schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +50Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / name / maxLengthAdded value: +1000Input schema / properties / name / minLengthAdded value: +1Output schema / $defs / _EntityHit / properties / relationshipsRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "items": {
- "$ref": "#/$defs/_Relationship"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Relationships"
-}Output schema / $defs / _RelationshipRemoved value: -{
- "properties": {
- "path_types": {
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "title": "Path Types",
- "type": "array"
- },
- "target_id": {
- "title": "Target Id",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "target_label": {
- "title": "Target Label",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "target_name": {
- "title": "Target Name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "target_url": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Target Url"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "path_types",
- "target_id",
- "target_label",
- "target_name",
- "target_url"
- ],
- "title": "_Relationship",
- "type": "object"
-}find_legal_resources9 fields changedInput schema / properties / bindingness / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "items": {
- "enum": [
- "binding",
- "comply_or_explain",
- "voluntary",
- "depends"
- ],
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "enum": [
+ "binding",
+ "comply_or_explain",
+ "voluntary",
+ "depends"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 20,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / jurisdiction / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "maxLength": 64,
+ "pattern": "^[a-z0-9-]+$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 20,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / nature / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "items": {
- "enum": [
- "legislation",
- "regulation",
- "standard",
- "framework",
- "guidance"
- ],
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "enum": [
+ "legislation",
+ "regulation",
+ "standard",
+ "framework",
+ "guidance"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 20,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / offset / maximumAdded value: +10000Input schema / properties / offset / minimumAdded value: +0Input schema / properties / query / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "maxLength": 200,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / sector / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "maxLength": 64,
+ "pattern": "^[a-z0-9-]+$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 20,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]get_legal_resource4 fields changedInput schema / properties / citing_limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / citing_limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / work_id / maxLengthAdded value: +500Input schema / properties / work_id / minLengthAdded value: +1search4 fields changedInput schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +50Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / query / maxLengthAdded value: +1000Input schema / properties / query / minLengthAdded value: +1taxonomy_content5 fields changedInput schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / offset / minimumAdded value: +0Input schema / properties / scope / enumAdded value: +[
+ "clause",
+ "guide",
+ "legal_resource",
+ "all"
+]Input schema / properties / sort / enumAdded value: +[
+ "title",
+ "date_published_desc",
+ "date_modified_desc"
+]taxonomy_facets1 field changedInput schema / properties / scope / enumAdded value: +[
+ "clause",
+ "guide",
+ "legal_resource",
+ "all"
+]entity_lookup2 fields changedOutput schema / $defs / _EntityHit / properties / referencesAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_Reference"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "References"
+}Output schema / $defs / _ReferenceAdded value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "edge": {
+ "title": "Edge",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "jurisdiction": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": "Jurisdiction",
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "title": "Name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "nature": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Nature"
+ },
+ "staleness": {
+ "title": "Staleness",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "title": "Status",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "work_id": {
+ "title": "Work Id",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "edge",
+ "work_id",
+ "name",
+ "nature",
+ "jurisdiction",
+ "status",
+ "staleness"
+ ],
+ "title": "_Reference",
+ "type": "object"
+}find_legal_resourcesget_legal_resourcesearch5 fields changedInput schema / properties / node_type / enumAdded value: +[
+ "tclp",
+ "all"
+]Output schema / $defs / _ReferenceAdded value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "edge": {
+ "title": "Edge",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "jurisdiction": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": "Jurisdiction",
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "title": "Name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "nature": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Nature"
+ },
+ "staleness": {
+ "title": "Staleness",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "title": "Status",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "work_id": {
+ "title": "Work Id",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "edge",
+ "work_id",
+ "name",
+ "nature",
+ "jurisdiction",
+ "status",
+ "staleness"
+ ],
+ "title": "_Reference",
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / $defs / _RelatedAdded value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "title": "Id",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "title": "Name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Url"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "title": "_Related",
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / $defs / _SearchHit / properties / referencesAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_Reference"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "References"
+}Output schema / $defs / _SearchHit / properties / relatedAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_Related"
+ },
+ "title": "Related",
+ "type": "array"
+}entity_lookup1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$defs": {
+ "_EntityHit": {
+ "properties": {
+ "content_type": {
+ "title": "Content Type",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "entity_matches": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Entity Matches"
+ },
+ "full_text": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Full Text"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "title": "Id",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ranks": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_SearchRanks"
+ },
+ "relationships": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_Relationship"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Relationships"
+ },
+ "scores": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_SearchScores"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "title": "Title",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "title": "Url",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "title": "_EntityHit",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "_Relationship": {
+ "properties": {
+ "path_types": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": "Path Types",
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "target_id": {
+ "title": "Target Id",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "target_label": {
+ "title": "Target Label",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "target_name": {
+ "title": "Target Name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "target_url": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Target Url"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "path_types",
+ "target_id",
+ "target_label",
+ "target_name",
+ "target_url"
+ ],
+ "title": "_Relationship",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "_SearchMeta": {
+ "properties": {
+ "degraded": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": "Degraded",
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "graph_total": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Graph Total"
+ },
+ "request_id": {
+ "title": "Request Id",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "text_total": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Text Total"
+ },
+ "took_ms": {
+ "title": "Took Ms",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "total_available": {
+ "title": "Total Available",
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "title": "_SearchMeta",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "_SearchRanks": {
+ "properties": {
+ "bm25": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Bm25"
+ },
+ "combined": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Combined"
+ },
+ "graph": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Graph"
+ }
+ },
+ "title": "_SearchRanks",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "_SearchScores": {
+ "properties": {
+ "bm25": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Bm25"
+ },
+ "graph": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Graph"
+ }
+ },
+ "title": "_SearchScores",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "properties": {
+ "meta": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_SearchMeta"
+ },
+ "results": {
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_EntityHit"
+ },
+ "title": "Results",
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "meta",
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "title": "EntityLookupResult",
+ "type": "object"
+}search1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$defs": {
+ "_SearchHit": {
+ "properties": {
+ "content_type": {
+ "title": "Content Type",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "entity_matches": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Entity Matches"
+ },
+ "full_text": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Full Text"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "title": "Id",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ranks": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_SearchRanks"
+ },
+ "relationships_text": {
+ "title": "Relationships Text",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "scores": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_SearchScores"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "title": "Title",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "title": "Url",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "title": "_SearchHit",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "_SearchMeta": {
+ "properties": {
+ "degraded": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": "Degraded",
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "graph_total": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Graph Total"
+ },
+ "request_id": {
+ "title": "Request Id",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "text_total": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Text Total"
+ },
+ "took_ms": {
+ "title": "Took Ms",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "total_available": {
+ "title": "Total Available",
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "title": "_SearchMeta",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "_SearchRanks": {
+ "properties": {
+ "bm25": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Bm25"
+ },
+ "combined": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Combined"
+ },
+ "graph": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Graph"
+ }
+ },
+ "title": "_SearchRanks",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "_SearchScores": {
+ "properties": {
+ "bm25": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Bm25"
+ },
+ "graph": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Graph"
+ }
+ },
+ "title": "_SearchScores",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "properties": {
+ "meta": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_SearchMeta"
+ },
+ "results": {
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_SearchHit"
+ },
+ "title": "Results",
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "meta",
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "title": "SearchResult",
+ "type": "object"
+}taxonomy_content1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$defs": {
+ "_TaxonomyContentHit": {
+ "properties": {
+ "content_type": {
+ "title": "Content Type",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "date_modified": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Date Modified"
+ },
+ "date_published": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Date Published"
+ },
+ "facets": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "title": "Facets",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "title": "Id",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "title": "Title",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "title": "Url",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "title": "_TaxonomyContentHit",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "_TaxonomyContentMeta": {
+ "properties": {
+ "filters": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": "Filters",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "request_id": {
+ "title": "Request Id",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "scope": {
+ "title": "Scope",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "took_ms": {
+ "title": "Took Ms",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "total_available": {
+ "title": "Total Available",
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "total_available",
+ "took_ms",
+ "request_id",
+ "scope",
+ "filters"
+ ],
+ "title": "_TaxonomyContentMeta",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "properties": {
+ "meta": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_TaxonomyContentMeta"
+ },
+ "results": {
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_TaxonomyContentHit"
+ },
+ "title": "Results",
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "meta",
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "title": "TaxonomyContentResult",
+ "type": "object"
+}taxonomy_facets1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$defs": {
+ "_TaxonomyFacet": {
+ "properties": {
+ "applies_to": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": "Applies To",
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "title": "Name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "values": {
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_TaxonomyFacetValue"
+ },
+ "title": "Values",
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "applies_to",
+ "values"
+ ],
+ "title": "_TaxonomyFacet",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "_TaxonomyFacetValue": {
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "title": "Count",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "title": "Slug",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "slug",
+ "count"
+ ],
+ "title": "_TaxonomyFacetValue",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "_TaxonomyFacetsMeta": {
+ "properties": {
+ "request_id": {
+ "title": "Request Id",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "took_ms": {
+ "title": "Took Ms",
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "took_ms",
+ "request_id"
+ ],
+ "title": "_TaxonomyFacetsMeta",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "properties": {
+ "facets": {
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_TaxonomyFacet"
+ },
+ "title": "Facets",
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "meta": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/_TaxonomyFacetsMeta"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "meta",
+ "facets"
+ ],
+ "title": "TaxonomyFacetsResult",
+ "type": "object"
+}entity_lookupsearchtaxonomy_contenttaxonomy_facets
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.