npm start

# Make the test client executable chmod +x test-client.js # Run the test client ./test-client.js

{ "mcpServers": { "cerebra-legal": { "command": "node", "args": ["/path/to/mcp-cerebra-legal-server/build/index.js"], "disabled": false, "alwaysAllow": [] } } }

{ "mcpServers": { "cerebra-legal": { "command": "node", "args": ["/path/to/mcp-cerebra-legal-server/build/index.js"], "disabled": false, "alwaysAllow": [] } } }

## legal_think Description: A structured legal reasoning tool that helps analyze complex legal issues with domain-specific guidance and templates. This tool enables step-by-step legal analysis with feedback on reasoning quality. Parameters: - thought: (required) The current legal reasoning step - thoughtNumber: (required) Current thought number in sequence - totalThoughts: (required) Estimated total thoughts needed - nextThoughtNeeded: (required) Whether another thought step is needed - category: (optional) Legal domain category (auto-detected if not provided) - references: (optional) Array of legal references - isRevision: (optional) Whether this revises previous thinking - revisesThoughtNumber: (optional) Which thought is being reconsidered - requestGuidance: (optional) Whether to request domain-specific guidance - requestTemplate: (optional) Whether to request a domain-specific template Usage: <legal_think> <thought>Your legal reasoning step here</thought> <thoughtNumber>Current thought number</thoughtNumber> <totalThoughts>Estimated total thoughts</totalThoughts> <nextThoughtNeeded>true or false</nextThoughtNeeded> <category>Legal domain (optional)</category> <references>Array of references (optional)</references> <isRevision>true or false (optional)</isRevision> <revisesThoughtNumber>Thought number being revised (optional)</revisesThoughtNumber> <requestGuidance>true or false (optional)</requestGuidance> <requestTemplate>true or false (optional)</requestTemplate> </legal_think> ## legal_ask_followup_question Description: Ask the user a legal domain-specific question to gather additional information needed to complete the task. This tool enhances the standard ask_followup_question with legal domain detection, terminology formatting, and domain-specific suggested options. Parameters: - question: (required) The question to ask the user. This will be automatically enhanced with appropriate legal terminology. - options: (optional) An array of 2-5 options for the user to choose from. If not provided, domain-specific options will be automatically suggested. - context: (optional) Additional context to help with domain detection and question formatting. Usage: <legal_ask_followup_question> <question>Your question here</question> <options> Array of options here (optional), e.g. ["Option 1", "Option 2", "Option 3"] </options> <context>Additional context to help with domain detection (optional)</context> </legal_ask_followup_question> ## legal_attempt_completion Description: Present the result of your work to the user with proper legal structure and formatting. This tool enhances the standard attempt_completion with legal domain detection, document structuring, and citation formatting. Parameters: - result: (required) The result of the task. This will be automatically formatted with proper legal structure. - command: (optional) A CLI command to execute to show a live demo of the result to the user. - context: (optional) Additional context to help with domain detection and result formatting. Usage: <legal_attempt_completion> <result> Your final result description here </result> <command>Command to demonstrate result (optional)</command> <context>Additional context to help with domain detection (optional)</context> </legal_attempt_completion>

I need to analyze an ANSC contestation where a claimant argues that technical specifications in a tender were too restrictive.

What specific provisions of the technical specifications are being challenged?

Based on my analysis, the technical specifications requiring "minimum 5 years experience" appear disproportionate and likely violate Article 33(2) of Law 131/2015 on public procurement.

{ "thought": "Analyzing ANSC contestation where claimant argues technical specifications were too restrictive.", "thoughtNumber": 1, "totalThoughts": 5, "nextThoughtNeeded": true, "category": "ansc_contestation", // Optional, auto-detected if not provided "references": ["Law 131/2015", "ANSC Decision #12345"], // Optional "isRevision": false, // Optional "revisesThoughtNumber": null, // Optional "requestGuidance": true, // Optional "requestTemplate": true // Optional }

{ "question": "What specific provisions of the technical specifications are being challenged?", "options": [ // Optional, auto-generated if not provided "Are you challenging the experience requirements?", "Are you challenging the technical capacity requirements?", "Are you challenging the financial requirements?", "Are you challenging the certification requirements?" ], "context": "ANSC contestation regarding procurement of IT equipment" // Optional }

{ "result": "Based on the analysis of ANSC contestation #12345, the technical specifications requiring 'minimum 5 years experience' appear disproportionate and likely violate Article 33(2) of Law 131/2015 on public procurement.", "command": null, // Optional "context": "ANSC contestation analysis" // Optional }

mcp-cerebra-legal-server/ ├── src/ │ ├── shared/ # Shared components │ │ ├── DomainDetector.ts │ │ ├── LegalKnowledgeBase.ts │ │ ├── CitationFormatter.ts │ │ └── types.ts │ ├── tools/ # Tool implementations │ │ ├── LegalThinkTool.ts │ │ ├── LegalAskFollowupQuestionTool.ts │ │ └── LegalAttemptCompletionTool.ts │ ├── utils/ # Utilities │ │ └── logger.ts │ └── index.ts # Main server entry point ├── build/ # Compiled JavaScript ├── test-client.js # Test client ├── package.json └── tsconfig.json

npm run build

# Run the test client ./test-client.js