maharashtra-courts-drafting

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_template

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a court-ready legal template by case type key or relative path, for drafting pleadings in Bombay High Court and Maharashtra tribunals.

Instructions

Return a long-form template by case_type key or by relative path.

Examples: civil-wp, wp-reply-affidavit, high-court/civil-writ-petition.md

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is covered. The description adds that lookup works by key or path, but it does not disclose behavior around formatting, missing keys, or fallbacks. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no filler: the operation is front-loaded, and examples are compactly presented. It does not repeat schema or annotation information.

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?

For a simple, read-only, one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential lookup semantics and examples needed to invoke it. Sibling-selection guidance is missing, but that gap is more directly a usage-guideline issue than an invocation-completeness issue.

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?

The input schema only defines a required string 'name' with no description (0% coverage), so the description must carry the meaning. It explains that 'name' accepts either a case_type key or a relative path and gives concrete examples, which is enough for a single-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action ('Return') and resource ('long-form template') and clarifies the two lookup modes ('by case_type key or by relative path'). It is distinguishable from list_templates and get_pleading_base, but does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are mentioned. The examples only illustrate valid name formats; they do not tell an agent when to choose this over list_templates or get_pleading_base.

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

Deploy Server