TAAP MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

lt_get_court_ruling

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a Lithuanian Constitutional Court act by TAR code and return its operative part, reasoning, facts, or all sections for citation and legal analysis.

Instructions

Fetch a Constitutional Court act with its parts split out.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`part`	No	which long part to return in full - ``"operative"`` (default: the operative part only), ``"reasoning"`` (konstatuoja), ``"facts"`` (nustatė) or ``"all"``.	operative
`tar_kodas`	Yes	TAR code of the KT act (from ``lt_search_court_rulings`` / ``lt_find_rulings_on_act``).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`part`	No		operative
`bench`	No	Judges as listed in the act.
`facts`	No
`sizes`	No	Characters per part.
`title`	No
`eli_uri`	No
`outcome`	No
`warning`	No
`eli_note`	No		Lithuania has no data.europa.eu ELI for the TAR dataset. eli_uri carries the canonical e-tar.lt legalAct URL (the stable national identifier), which is also the source_url.
`cached_at`	No	When that stored copy was fetched.
`operative`	No
`reasoning`	No
`tar_kodas`	No
`source_url`	No
`case_number`	No
`ruling_type`	No
`dataset_note`	No		The Lithuanian Register of Legal Acts (TAR) is served as open data via the data.gov.lt Spinta API (dataset gov/lrsk/teises_aktai: models Dokumentas, Suvestine, Priedas; CC BY 4.0). Acts are addressed by their TAR code (tar_kodas, e.g. '2014-21296'); discover acts with lt_search (matches the title). Consolidated editions (suvestines redakcijos) come from the Suvestine model, attachments (priedai) from the Priedas model. Language: Lithuanian.
`date_adopted`	No
`retrieved_at`	No
`document_type`	No
`content_sha256`	No
`operative_items`	No
`served_from_cache`	No	True when data.gov.lt failed and a stored copy was served instead.
`source_fetched_at`	No	Oldest fetch time of any source response used (cache incl.).
`human_readable_citation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds the structural point that the act is returned with its parts separated, but says nothing about default part selection, size of returned text, or truncation behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is perhaps too terse for the job, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema carries the parameter semantics. Still missing is the routing information an agent needs to choose this tool over the two search siblings and lt_get_act.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both tar_kodas and the part enum-with-default are fully documented in the schema, including the operative/reasoning/facts/all values. The description adds nothing on top, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb (Fetch) and resource (Constitutional Court act) with the 'parts split out' qualifier. This distinguishes it reasonably well from lt_get_act, though that distinction rests on the reader knowing lt_get_act covers ordinary legislation rather than court rulings.

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 statement of when to use this versus lt_search_court_rulings, lt_find_rulings_on_act, or lt_get_act. The only hint that it consumes a code produced by the search tools lives in the schema, not the description.

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