boltwork-mcp

analyse_contract

Analyze contract PDFs to extract risk scores, key clauses, obligations, termination triggers, red flags, and recommended actions. For NDAs, SaaS agreements, employment contracts, and leases.

Instructions

Analyse a contract PDF and return structured intelligence. Returns risk score, key clauses, obligations, termination triggers, red flags, and recommended actions in plain English. Costs 1000 sats via Lightning. Use for: NDAs, SaaS agreements, employment contracts, leases, any legal document.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "analyse_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	URL of the contract PDF
`max_pages`	No	Max pages to process (default 30)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.22May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the cost (1000 sats) and describes the output, but does not mention side effects, persistence, or whether the tool is read-only. The cost is a notable behavioral trait, but more detail could be added.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and output, the second adds usage examples and cost. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description comprehensively explains what the tool returns (risk score, clauses, etc.). It covers purpose, usage, output, and cost, making it fully self-contained for a simple tool with two parameters.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (url and max_pages). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already states; it only briefly mentions 'max pages to process' which is redundant.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('analyse a contract PDF') and lists exact outputs (risk score, key clauses, etc.). It also provides use-case examples (NDAs, SaaS agreements), distinguishing it from siblings like 'summarise_pdf' or 'extract_data'.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool ('Use for: NDAs, SaaS agreements...') and mentions a cost (1000 sats), which is a key usage condition. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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

Deploy Server