Skip to main content
Glama
malamutemayhem

UnClick MCP Server

by malamutemayhem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

legalpass_run

Runs a LegalPass issue-spotting pass on a URL, contract upload, or repository, returning deterministic public evidence with fixture text or a guarded run plan without it.

Instructions

Run a LegalPass issue-spotting pass against a URL, contract upload, or repo. With fixture_text, returns deterministic public evidence; without it, returns the guarded run plan.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNo
pack_idNoLegalPass pack slug (default: legalpass-mvp-v0)
profileNoRun profile (default: smoke)
target_shaNoOptional commit or target evidence SHA to bind the LegalPass receipt to a specific target version
target_urlNoURL target shortcut for TestPass-style callers
fixture_textNoPublic text to check deterministically for dogfood or local proof
jurisdictionsNoOptional jurisdiction routing hints

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.11
    • addedInput schema / properties / fixture_text
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public text to check deterministically for dogfood or local proof",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / target_sha
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional commit or target evidence SHA to bind the LegalPass receipt to a specific target version",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / target_url
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "URL target shortcut for TestPass-style callers",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "target"
-]
  2. Addedv0.1.9
  3. Removed
  4. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that fixture_text produces deterministic public evidence while omitting it returns a guarded run plan. However, it does not state side effects, persistence, authorization needs, or whether the run mutates state.

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?

The description is two front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action and the fixture_text-dependent return behavior are stated immediately.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more context for a complex 7-parameter run tool. It explains the two return modes but leaves important gaps around authorization, side effects, and how it relates to legalpass_status or legalpass_verdict.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context for fixture_text and target kinds, but it does not clarify pack_id, profile, target_sha, target_url, or jurisdictions beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Run a LegalPass issue-spotting pass.' It also states the supported target kinds (URL, contract upload, repo). However, it does not differentiate this tool from nearby siblings such as legalpass_verdict, legalpass_status, or other *pass_run tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage through target kinds and the fixture_text mode distinction, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus legalpass_status, legalpass_verdict, or other LegalPass siblings. It also omits prerequisites or guidance on when fixture_text should be supplied.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools