Skip to main content
Glama
Data-Alchemy-Labs

proofread-mcp

by Data-Alchemy-Labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

What proofread.law checks against

coverage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Explains what the citation check covers, its date, known gaps, and storage policy. Optionally describes the Swiss register for BGE/ATF/DTF, and answers questions about scope and privacy.

Instructions

The coverage statement (which opinions the register holds, its date, its known gaps, what is not checked: Westlaw/Lexis identifiers, statutes, regulations, secondary sources) and the storage notice (a checked text is not stored; only a brief the user saves with save_brief is kept, encrypted in their account). Pass jurisdiction 'ch' for the Swiss register instead (BGE/ATF/DTF, Federal Supreme Court dockets, the federal courts and the 26 cantons), which also lists the courts held and the share of the live index each covers. Call it when a user asks what the check covers, how current it is, or what happens to their text. Free, not counted as a check.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jurisdictionNoWhich register to describe. Default 'us'. 'ch' for Swiss case law.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / jurisdiction
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which register to describe. Default 'us'. 'ch' for Swiss case law.",
+  "enum": [
+    "us",
+    "ch"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant context beyond these: it details what is not checked (Westlaw/Lexis identifiers, statutes, regulations, secondary sources), clarifies the storage notice (text not stored, only saved briefs encrypted), and notes the tool is free and not counted as a check. No contradiction with 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 well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose (coverage statement and storage notice), then elaborates on the jurisdiction parameter, then gives usage triggers. While it is a bit long, every sentence contributes necessary information—no fluff. The structure aids readability.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fully self-sufficient. It covers what the tool does, when to call it, parameter semantics, behavioral details (storage, free usage), and jurisdiction variants. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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?

The schema already describes the 'jurisdiction' parameter with a default and options. The description adds valuable context: it explains what the Swiss register includes (BGE/ATF/DTF, Federal Supreme Court dockets, federal courts, 26 cantons) and that it lists courts held and share of live index. This goes beyond the schema's simple enum description, enriching the parameter's meaning.

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 states a clear purpose: it returns the coverage statement and storage notice. It explicitly lists what the coverage includes (opinions, date, gaps, exclusions) and mentions the jurisdiction option, making it distinct from any sibling tool that deals with checking or briefs. No ambiguity about what it does.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Call it when a user asks what the check covers, how current it is, or what happens to their text.' It also explains the jurisdiction parameter for Swiss case law. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the conditions are clear enough for an agent to decide.

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