Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@legal-cite Verify the text of art. 45 u.k.k."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Legal citation verifier (PL / EU law) — an MCP server that fetches the exact, in-force wording of a cited article straight from the official source. An anti-hallucination tool for Claude (and any MCP client): instead of trusting the model's memory of a statute, it returns the verbatim text of the cited article from the official register.
Weryfikator cytatów prawnych (prawo PL / UE) — serwer MCP pobierający dokładne, aktualne brzmienie cytowanego artykułu prosto z oficjalnego źródła. Narzędzie anti-halucynacyjne dla Claude (i dowolnego klienta MCP).
🇵🇱 PL law — api.sejm.gov.pl (ELI). Returns the consolidated text (tekst jednolity, currently in force), not the original as-promulgated version.
🇪🇺 EU law — EUR-Lex (Polish text). Note: EUR-Lex sometimes serves a bot-challenge (HTTP 202) → returns an error instead of text.
Returns only the cited article (not the whole act). The quote comes straight from the source.
verify_article("art. 45 u.k.k.") — the wording of a provision. Format: art. N [ust. M] CODE.
Handles letter suffixes (art. 36a), § as a unit (art. 58 § 2 KC), superscripts (art. 385¹ / 385[1]).
list_acts() — list of supported act codes (PL + EU).
pip install -e .
legal-cite # stdioclaude_desktop_config.json:
{ "mcpServers": { "legal-cite": { "command": "legal-cite" } } }gcloud run deploy legal-cite \
--source=. \
--region=europe-west4 \
--allow-unauthenticated \
--memory=256Mi --cpu=1 --max-instances=2 --port=8080Public, no-auth is safe here — the service serves only public legal texts (no data, no database, no LLM calls).
Connect in Claude: Connectors → Add custom connector → https://<service-url>.run.app/mcp (streamable-http mounts MCP at /mcp).
Add an entry to PL_ACTS (key = abbreviation; pub/year/pos from the Journal of Laws / ELI) or EU_ACTS (key = abbreviation, celex) in legal_cite/core.py.
Related MCP server: Slovak Law MCP Server
verify_article("art. 45 u.k.k.") — brzmienie przepisu. Format: art. N [ust. M] KOD.
Obsługuje sufiks literowy (art. 36a), § jako jednostkę (art. 58 § 2 KC), indeks górny (art. 385¹ / 385[1]).
list_acts() — lista obsługiwanych kodów aktów (PL + UE).
pip install -e .
legal-cite # stdioWpis w claude_desktop_config.json:
{ "mcpServers": { "legal-cite": { "command": "legal-cite" } } }gcloud run deploy legal-cite \
--source=. \
--region=europe-west4 \
--allow-unauthenticated \
--memory=256Mi --cpu=1 --max-instances=2 --port=8080Publiczny bez auth jest tu bezpieczny — serwis serwuje wyłącznie publiczne teksty aktów (zero danych, zero bazy, zero wywołań LLM).
Podłączenie w Claude: Connectors → Add custom connector → https://<adres-serwisu>.run.app/mcp.
Część zestawu otwartych narzędzi LegalTech (PL):
legal-cite-pl — (ten projekt) MCP: weryfikacja brzmienia przepisu PL/UE ze źródła.
commercial-legal-pl — Claude skill: redakcja i analiza umów (PL); używa verify_article.
anon-legal-pl — lokalna anonimizacja akt prawnych (PL).
kancelaria-dms — DMS/CRM dla kancelarii (Google Workspace).
Apache License 2.0 — see LICENSE.
Lista obsługiwanych kodów aktów (PL + UE) dla verify_article.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or return format. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, but it only states the purpose without behavioral details. However, for a parameterless listing tool, the lack of behavioral information is less critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is in Polish, which may not be ideal for English-language agents. The structure is front-loaded and efficient, but language consideration reduces the score slightly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is complete enough. It states the tool lists codes for verify_article, which is sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's role. No additional requirements are needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and the schema covers 100% (no parameters). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists supported act codes (PL+EU) for verify_article. The name 'list_acts' is a verb+resource, and the sibling tool verify_article provides context, distinguishing this listing function from verification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to get codes for verify_article, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or provide alternatives. The context is clear from the sibling tool, but no explicit guidance such as 'use this tool to retrieve codes before calling verify_article' is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Dokładne brzmienie cytowanego przepisu z OFICJALNEGO źródła (api.sejm.gov.pl dla PL, EUR-Lex dla UE) — zwraca tylko ten artykuł, nie cały akt. Zwraca AKTUALNE brzmienie (tekst jednolity). Anti-halucynacja: weryfikacja cytatu wprost ze źródła. Format: 'art. N [ust. M] KOD'. Przykłady: 'art. 45 u.k.k.', 'art. 385 KC', 'art. 28 ust. 3 RODO', 'art. 10 CCD'. Kody: list_acts().
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| citation | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description compensates by stating it returns current wording (consolidated text), only the requested article, and that it uses official sources. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value: purpose, sources, behavior, format, examples. Front-loads the main purpose. Could be slightly tighter but still efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers input format, sources, and behavior. Sufficient for a single-parameter tool with clear return (article text).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'citation'. Description provides detailed format, examples, and code listing instruction, adding essential meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it returns the exact wording of a cited provision from official sources (api.sejm.gov.pl, EUR-Lex), returns only the article not the whole act, and distinguishes from sibling list_acts by focusing on verification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description explains when to use: for verifying citations directly from source (anti-hallucination). Provides format and examples, and mentions sibling tool list_acts for codes. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0list_actsverify_articleScored across 2 tools
The two tools have completely separate purposes: listing supported act codes and verifying a single article citation. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_acts, verify_article) and are easily readable.
With only two tools, the server feels very minimal. While the domain is narrow, additional tools for searching or retrieving full act texts would be expected.
The server handles listing codes and verifying individual articles but lacks tools for retrieving full act texts or verifying multiple citations, leaving notable gaps.
Semantic search over Polish law and case law, citing the exact in-force article.
Verifies legal citations vs primary sources: existence, quote match, proposition support.
Verified EU law: verbatim, signed provisions with EUR-Lex links. Read-only, not legal advice.
Resolve, search and verify legal citations against the official sources, with provenance.
