Skip to main content
Glama
Data-Alchemy-Labs

proofread-mcp

by Data-Alchemy-Labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Look up a list of citations in the register

resolve_citations
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up up to 500 case citations in one call and get per-citation status: found, ambiguous, not in register, or cannot verify. Ideal for tables of authorities or any citation list.

Instructions

Look up up to 500 case citation strings in proofread.law's register in one call and get one line per citation, in input order: found (the case, court, date, link), ambiguous, not in the register (a register fact with a coverage qualifier, never proof that the case does not exist), cannot verify (Westlaw/Lexis identifier, or a volume the register cannot see yet), known citation, or no citation recognised. Use it for a table of authorities or any list of citations you already have; use check_citations for prose (it also checks names and quotations). 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. Each citation counts against the resolve quota (1,000 a month free), not the check quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
citesYesCitation strings, one per entry, up to 500.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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 provide read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description goes further by disclosing result categories, quota accounting, red/orange row semantics, and unsupported inputs. It adds substantial operational context beyond the annotations with no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, limitations, and quota. Every clause contributes useful information, though it is slightly long and repeats 'up to 500', keeping it from a perfect 5.

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?

The tool has one well-described parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry return-value and interpretation details. It fully covers result categories, ordering, limitations, quota, and how to interpret ambiguous rows, making it complete for agent invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already fully describes the single 'cites' parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces that these are case citation strings and that output preserves input order, but it does not add syntax, formatting, or example details beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('look up'), a specific resource ('up to 500 case citation strings in proofread.law's register'), and a clear output shape (one line per citation). It explicitly contrasts this tool with check_citations, distinguishing it from a key sibling.

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?

Gives explicit usage contexts: 'table of authorities or any list of citations you already have.' It names the alternative for prose (check_citations) and lists exclusions (Westlaw/Lexis identifiers, statutes, regulations, secondary sources, good-law checks), so an agent can decide when not to use it.

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