Lexiara

What is waiting for a human verdict

list_review_queue

Read-onlyIdempotent

The AUTO-GATED backlog from one place, newest first: unreviewed article-level transposition links with BOTH provision texts side by side and the stored reasoning, model/low-confidence concept tags, draft topic descriptions and jurisdiction notes, and recorded findings (gaps and divergences a round could not decide). Filter by kind, vertical and jurisdiction. EVERYTHING HERE IS UNREVIEWED EVIDENCE — cite none of it as a finding. This tool is READ-ONLY: verdicts are set only by a human with a 'reviewer' key, and no MCP tool can set one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	Comma-separated kinds: transposition, tag, topic-description, jurisdiction-note, finding. Omit for all.
`chars`	No	Characters of provision text per side. Omit for the WHOLE text, which is the default: a character budget once hid two parts of a French code article and produced two false absences.
`limit`	No	Maximum items, default 20, max 100.
`offset`	No	Skip this many items — the queue is paged, not sampled.
`vertical`	No	Vertical id, e.g. 'eu-consumer', 'fr-consumer', 'es-consumer'.
`jurisdiction`	No	ISO country filter, e.g. 'UK', 'FR', 'EU'.
`lowConfidence`	No	Also list non-model classifier tags at or below this confidence. Omit for model tags only — the keyword baseline's weak tail is 24 000 rows and would bury the 157 links a verdict changes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 10, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "The JSON response from the corresponding Lexiara API route.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description reinforces read-only behavior and explains the human-only verdict mechanism. It also discloses that all items are unreviewed evidence not to be cited as findings, and warns that truncating provision text can hide content. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 dense but purposeful: one flowing definition, then the safety warning verdicts, then filter summary MendReadOnly. The ALL-CAPS warning earns its place. Slightly long, but every clause carries distinct information. Front-loaded with the subject and ordering.

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?

Even though there is an output schema, the description gives the essential context: what items appear, that they are ordered newest first, that they are paged, what each kind means, and the critical citation caveat. An agent can select and invoke this tool safely without further exploration.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% (all 7 params have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by grouping filters (kind, vertical, jurisdiction), explaining the 'chars' truncation hazard with a concrete example (French code article), and clarifying that omitting lowConfidence means model tags only. That extra semantics justifies a 4.

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?

Description names a specific verb (list), a distinct resource (the human-verdict review queue), and defines its exact contents (unreviewed article-level transposition links with reasoning, tags, topic descriptions, jurisdiction notes, findings). It clearly differentiates this tool from the sibling search/list tools by foregrounding the auto-gated, unreviewed, evidence-only nature of the backlog.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes the intended context explicit: this is the unreviewed, auto-gated work queue a human must decide on desserts? It states filter options and the ordering. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other use cases, but the title and the 'UNREVIEWED EVIDENCE' warning make selection unambiguous against the siblings. Could name when not to use it, but the exclusions are implicit in 'UNREVIEWED'.

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

All Lexiara tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?