Skip to main content
Glama
apiotrowski-afk

legal-cite

by apiotrowski-afk
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely separate purposes: listing supported act codes and verifying a single article citation. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_acts, verify_article) and are easily readable.

    Tool Count3/5

    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.

    Completeness3/5

    The server handles listing codes and verifying individual articles but lacks tools for retrieving full act texts or verifying multiple citations, leaving notable gaps.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

    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.

    Conciseness4/5

    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.

    Completeness4/5

    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.

    Parameters4/5

    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.

    Purpose5/5

    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.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    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.

  • Behavior4/5

    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.

    Conciseness4/5

    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.

    Completeness4/5

    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.

    Parameters5/5

    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.

    Purpose5/5

    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.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    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.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

legal-cite-pl MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

legal-cite-pl MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/apiotrowski-afk/legal-cite-pl'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server