Skip to main content
Glama

Lexiara

by org.lexiara

The law this key follows

list_follows
Read-onlyIdempotent

The instruments, provisions, subjects, jurisdictions and verticals this API key follows. READ-ONLY, like every tool here: creating or removing a follow is an HTTP POST/DELETE to /v1/follows, because the MCP catalogue dispatches GETs through the routing table and stays read-only by construction. Requires the caller's OWN key — the shared demo key is refused, since a follow list under it would be shared with strangers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Above and beyond the annotations, the description explains why the tool is read-only by construction and adds the important behavioral caveat that the caller's own key is required and the demo key is refused. This is meaningful context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then packs authentication and mutation guidance into the next two sentences without waste. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description covers scope, safety, mutation alternatives, and auth requirements. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a burden. The description goes further by defining what the returned follow list contains (instruments, provisions, subjects, jurisdictions, verticals), which adds useful semantic meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists the instruments, provisions, subjects, jurisdictions and verticals that an API key follows. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools by focusing on follow state rather than topics, provisions, or review queues.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (to view follows for your own key) and when not to use it (creating or removing a follow requires HTTP POST/DELETE to /v1/follows). It also warns about the shared demo key being refused, giving the agent actionable guidance for invocation.

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

All Lexiara 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions carefully separate overlapping areas such as definition lookup, cross-references, and transposition links. A few citation/graph tools (related_works, work_mentions, find_national_implementations, provision_context) could be confused at a glance, but their granularity and direction are explicitly differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming follows a readable all-lowercase-snake_case style, but conventions are mixed: roughly half are imperative verb_object names (lookup_provision, search_legislation, list_topics) while the rest are bare noun-phrase view names (provision_context, recent_changes, work_mentions). The pattern is understandable but not uniform.

Tool Count4/5

At 18 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool maps to a distinct research query or data product. The count is justified by the breadth of legal-research operations rather than redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the domain thoroughly: search, provision lookup, definitions, multilingual terms, cross-references, amendment history, transposition links, topics, coverage, updates, and review workflows. The explicit read-only design means absent write operations are a deliberate boundary, not a gap.

Resources