mcp-saos

get_judgment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a full Polish judgment from SAOS using its numeric ID. Returns metadata, summary, and initial content for legal research.

Instructions

Pobiera pelne orzeczenie z SAOS po jego numerycznym ID. Zwraca metadane (sygnatura, sad, data, sklad, podstawy prawne), streszczenie (jesli dostepne) oraz pierwsze 2000 znakow tresci. ID orzeczenia pochodzi z wynikow narzedzia 'search' lub 'search_by_case'. Bledy: missing_arg (brak id), not_found (id poza baza), upstream_error.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_judgment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Numeryczne ID orzeczenia w bazie SAOS, np. 352475 lub '31345'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.2Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds details about content truncation (first 2000 characters) and summary availability, which go beyond annotations. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single paragraph of three sentences, each serving a purpose: action, return contents, and source/errors. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no redundant information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool without output schema, the description covers purpose, input source, errors, and return structure (metadata, summary, truncated content). It is fully adequate for an agent to understand and use the tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a descriptive parameter name and type. The description adds context about ID source (from search tools) and error handling, but the schema already adequately documents the parameter meaning. Baseline 3 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 action (pobiera pelne orzeczenie) and the resource (SAOS by numeric ID). It lists return contents and differentiates from sibling tools (search, search_by_case) which are for finding IDs, not retrieving full records.

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 specifies when to use: when an ID is available from search or search_by_case. It lists possible errors (missing_arg, not_found, upstream_error) providing guidance on handling. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear.

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

Deploy Server