Skip to main content
Glama
Data-Alchemy-Labs

proofread-mcp

by Data-Alchemy-Labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Check legal citations in a file

check_document
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check every case citation in a PDF, DOCX, or TXT file against a register of 10 million US court opinions. Get coverage counts, flagged citations, and a report ID for detailed review.

Instructions

Check every case citation in a document on disk (PDF, DOCX or TXT, up to 10 MB) against proofread.law's register of about 10 million US court opinions. The file is read here and uploaded to proofread.law, which extracts the text in memory, checks it and discards it. Returns the same compact result as check_citations: coverage statement, counts per tier, one line per red (check this) or orange (cannot verify) row, the number of citations found, and a report id for render_report. Scanned PDFs without a text layer, encrypted PDFs and legacy .doc files cannot be read; .docx needs a paid plan. Cannot: resolve Westlaw (WL) or Lexis identifiers, check statutes, regulations or secondary sources, or say whether a case is still good law. A red row means 'check this', never 'this case does not exist'; an orange row means the register has nothing to check against, which is not evidence either way. deep=true also asks, for each found citation, whether the opinion supports the sentence it is cited for (white rows). It is slower (1 to 2 s per citation), opt-in because the clause before each citation is sent to a model judge, limited to 3 per month on the free tier, and its answers are a review queue, not a verdict.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deepNoAlso check whether each cited opinion supports the sentence it is cited for. Slower, opt-in, 3 per month on the free tier.
pathYesAbsolute path to a .pdf, .docx or .txt file on this machine.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Richly discloses behavior beyond annotations: file is uploaded to proofread.law, processed in memory, and discarded; deep mode sends clauses to a model judge with speed/cost limits; red/orange row semantics are explicitly defined. This gives agents crucial context that annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) do not cover.

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?

Front-loaded with the main purpose and then details, but is a dense block of text that could be broken into bullets for readability. Still, every sentence carries informative value, so it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Covers purpose, input constraints, data handling, output shape (coverage statement, counts, red/orange rows, report id), limitations, and deep-mode semantics. With no output schema, the description proactively explains what the agent will receive and how to interpret results, making it highly complete.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning: for path it adds the 10 MB limit and unreadable formats; for deep it explains what it does, the performance cost, free-tier quota, and that results are a review queue rather than a verdict. This is well beyond the schema's basic property descriptions.

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?

States a specific action ('Check every case citation in a document on disk') with explicit formats, size limit, and target register. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the 'same compact result as check_citations' and explicitly excludes 'resolve Westlaw (WL) or Lexis identifiers', separating it from resolve tools.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use (file-based citation checking) and lists exclusions (scanned PDFs, encrypted PDFs, legacy .doc, .docx paid plan). It also states what it cannot do, which is an implicit when-not, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives for specific cases (e.g., 'use check_citations for text input').

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools