UK Legal Research MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the optional LLM disambiguation process for ambiguous citations, mentions resolution to TNA/legislation.gov.uk URLs, and specifies the 50,000 character limit. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

The description is efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specific citation types handled, then behavioral details about disambiguation and URL resolution. Each sentence adds distinct value, and the information is appropriately front-loaded with the most important details first.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which means return values don't need description), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, supported citation types, behavioral traits like disambiguation and URL resolution, and parameter context - addressing all essential aspects for a parsing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters (text with max length and supported citation types, disambiguate flag with default). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the same citation types and mentioning LLM sampling for disambiguation, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'extract and classify' with the specific resource 'OSCOLA legal citations from free text'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like citations_network and citations_resolve by focusing on parsing rather than network analysis or resolution, and lists specific citation types it handles (neutral citations, law reports, legislation sections, SIs, retained EU law).

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

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

The description implies usage context by specifying 'free text containing OSCOLA citations' and listing supported citation types, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like citations_resolve or case_law_search. It mentions optional disambiguation via LLM sampling, which provides some guidance on when that feature might be useful, but lacks explicit 'when-not' scenarios or clear alternatives.

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