Skip to main content
Glama
paulieb89

UK Legal Research MCP Server

Resolve Single OSCOLA Citation

citations_resolve
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolves and verifies UK legal citations by parsing them and checking document existence via authoritative sources, ensuring accuracy before formatting.

Instructions

USE THIS TOOL BEFORE constructing an OSCOLA citation string from known fields, OR when you have a citation and want to confirm it points at a real document.

Parses + resolves a single citation (neutral citation, SI, legislation section, retained EU law) and returns the parsed fields plus a resolved_url. Raises ValueError if nothing recognisable is found.

For neutral citations, performs a live HTTP HEAD check against TNA Find Case Law to confirm the judgment exists. If TNA returns non-200, confidence is set to 0.0 — the citation parsed successfully but the document does not exist at the constructed URL. DO NOT format or quote a citation with confidence 0.0 as verified; surface the failure and ask the user for the source URL or better identifying details.

Formatting a citation from "known" fields (year, court, number) without prior resolution is the most common citation-fabrication route — the formatter accepts whatever you give it and produces plausible-looking output for invented inputs. If this tool raises or returns no resolved_url, do NOT manufacture a citation — surface the failure and ask the user for the source URL or better identifying details.

Authoritative source for UK legal-citation resolution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
citationYesA single OSCOLA citation to parse and resolve. E.g. '[2024] UKSC 12', 'SI 2018/1234', 's.47 Companies Act 2006'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawYesOriginal citation text as found in the source
typeYesClassification of the citation type
yearNoYear component of the citation
courtNoCourt code: UKSC, UKPC, EWCA Civ, EWCA Crim, EWHC (KB), EWHC (Ch), EWHC (Comm), EWHC (Fam), EWHC (Pat), EWHC (IPEC), UKUT (IAC), UKUT (TCC), UKUT (AAC), UKUT (LC), EAT, UKFTT (TC), UKFTT (GRC)
numberNoJudgment number within the year
report_seriesNoLaw report series abbreviation: WLR, AC, QB, KB, Ch, All ER, EWCA Civ, etc.
volumeNoReport volume number (for law reports)
pageNoStarting page in the law report
legislation_titleNoTitle of legislation (for s.NN Act YYYY citations)
sectionNoSection number referenced
si_yearNoSI year (for SI YYYY/NNN citations)
si_numberNoSI number
resolved_urlNoTNA Find Case Law or legislation.gov.uk URL if successfully resolved
confidenceYesParse confidence 0.0–1.0. Citations below 0.7 are ambiguous and may have been sent for LLM disambiguation.
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the live HTTP HEAD check for neutral citations, confidence=0.0 handling, ValueError on unrecognizable input, and the fabrication warning. These details go beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and provide essential behavioral context.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the key usage instruction and structured in paragraphs that each add value. It is longer than minimal but every sentence earns its place; minor tightening possible.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (external resolution, error states, confidence handling) and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects for correct agent usage, including failure handling and warnings against misuse.

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 single parameter 'citation' has schema coverage 100%, but the description adds context on accepted formats (neutral citation, SI, legislation section) with examples, increasing semantic value beyond the schema description.

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 explicitly states the tool resolves OSCOLA citations to verify existence, and distinguishes from sibling 'citations_format_oscola' by warning against using the formatter without resolution. The verb 'resolve' and resource 'OSCOLA citation' are clear.

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 provides explicit when-to-use (before formatting or to confirm document existence) and when-not-to-use (do not manufacture citations on failure). It implies alternatives (the formatter) but does not explicitly name them as alternatives outside the warning.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/paulieb89/uk-legal-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server