Skip to main content
Glama
Data-Alchemy-Labs

proofread-mcp

by Data-Alchemy-Labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Suggest leading Swiss cases for a statute article

suggest_cases
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find leading Swiss Federal Supreme Court cases cited for a federal statute article. Enter an article like 'Art. 41 OR' to get a ranked list of cases to read.

Instructions

Swiss law only. Give a Swiss federal statute article ('Art. 41 OR', 'art. 41 CO', 'Art. 8 ZGB', 'art. 9 Cst.') or a paragraph that cites one, and get the leading Federal Supreme Court cases (BGE/ATF/DTF) the court cites with that article, as cases to read. The query needs a statute article: there is no free-text search, and a query without one answers that no article was recognised. Federal acts only; cantonal law is not covered. The answer is one ranked list, each case labelled with its field of law; the domain filter keeps the same order within one field. Each row has the citation, date, field, rank, the quoted passage (regeste or consideration), the decision's link, a link to check the citation on proofread.law, and any later change of practice (a changed precedent is listed with its flag, never left out; a row without a flag is not evidence that its practice still holds). A suggestion has not been checked against the user's sentence; to check a citation, use check_citations. The answer comes back in the query's language (German, French or Italian; lang='en' for English). During the trial phase it needs a paid-plan or trial API key; each answered query counts as one resolve.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kNoNumber of rows, 1 to 50. Default 10.
langNoThe answer's language: de, fr, it or en. Default: the query's language.
queryYesA Swiss federal statute article, e.g. 'Art. 41 OR' or 'art. 9 Cst.', or a paragraph that cites one (up to 20,000 characters).
domainNoOnly this field of law (civil, criminal, public or social), in the same order as the full list. Default all.all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description correctly doesn't repeat those. It adds rich behavioral detail: the ranked-list output structure, per-row fields (citation, date, field, rank, quoted passage, links), the flag semantics for changed precedents ('a row without a flag is not evidence that its practice still holds'), the language selection rule, and the billing note. 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 longer than average, but every sentence carries a distinct piece of information: scope, input requirement, output structure, caveats, language, and billing. It is front-loaded with the core function and then flows logically through constraints and output details. The length is justified by the tool's complexity, so 4 is appropriate rather than 5 for slight over-brevity in some clauses.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the input format, the output fields, the ordering behavior, the language default, the trial-phase key requirement, and the relationship to check_citations. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the query must be a statute article (or a paragraph citing one) and that free-text search is not supported, which is not in the schema. It also explains the domain filter keeps order within a field, which is not in the schema. These additions justify 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?

The description opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'get the leading Federal Supreme Court cases (BGE/ATF/DTF) the court cites with that article'. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling check_citations by stating that suggestions are not checked against the user's sentence and pointing to check_citations for that. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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?

The description states when to use it (you have a Swiss federal statute article) and when not (cantonal law, free-text queries). It explicitly says 'a query without one answers that no article was recognised' and names the alternative tool check_citations for verification. It also notes the trial-phase API-key requirement, which is a practical usage constraint.

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