Skip to main content
Glama

Format AGLC4 Citation

format_citation

Format Australian case citations per AGLC4: full, short, ibid, subsequent, and pinpoint references by fetching judgments from AustLII.

Instructions

Format an Australian case citation per AGLC4 rules. mode=full combines case name, neutral citation, reported citation, and optional pinpoint. mode=short/ibid/subsequent produce AGLC4 short-form, Ibid, and subsequent references (subsequent requires footnoteRef). mode=pinpoint fetches a judgment from AustLII and generates a pinpoint citation to a specific paragraph (by number or phrase).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNofull = AGLC4 full citation (default); short = short form; ibid = Ibid (back-to-back same source); subsequent = title (n X); pinpoint = fetch a judgment and generate a paragraph pinpointfull
titleNoCase name, e.g. 'Mabo v Queensland (No 2)' (full mode) or the abbreviated case name chosen at first reference, e.g. 'Mabo' (short/ibid/subsequent). Required for all modes except pinpoint.
neutralCitationNoNeutral citation, e.g. '[1992] HCA 23' (full mode)
reportedCitationNoReported citation, e.g. '(1992) 175 CLR 1' (full mode)
pinpointNoPinpoint reference, e.g. '[20]' (full mode)
styleNoCitation style for full mode: neutral (neutral only), reported (reported only), combined (both)combined
footnoteRefNoFootnote number of first citation — required for subsequent mode
pinpointParaNoParagraph pinpoint number for short-form modes, e.g. 20 → [20]
pinpointPageNoPage pinpoint number for short-form modes, e.g. 401
urlNoAustLII document URL to fetch and search — required for pinpoint mode
paragraphNumberNoParagraph number to locate (pinpoint mode)
phraseNoPhrase to search for within paragraphs (pinpoint mode)
caseCitationNoCase citation to prepend to the pinpoint, e.g. '[2022] FedCFamC2F 786' (pinpoint mode)
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that pinpoint mode fetches a judgment from AustLII, a notable side effect. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling for network failures. With no annotations, the description carries the burden fully, but it does provide key behavioral context for a complex tool.

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 a single focused paragraph, front-loading the tool's core purpose. Every sentence adds value: mode enumeration, requirements, and the unique AustLII functionality. It is efficient without being terse.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, 5 modes, no output schema), the description covers the purpose of each mode and parameter interactions adequately. It lacks detail on output format or error states, but for a formatting tool this is acceptable. The description is complete enough for a legal citation expert.

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?

Schema coverage is complete (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by grouping parameters with modes and explaining their interactions (e.g., 'pinpointPara' and 'pinpointPage' are for short-form modes). This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 specifies a concrete verb ('Format') and resource ('Australian case citation per AGLC4 rules'), with detailed enumeration of modes (full, short, ibid, subsequent, pinpoint). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cite' or 'resolve_citation' which likely serve different citation systems or tasks.

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 explains each mode's purpose and when to use them, including required parameters for specific modes (e.g., footnoteRef for subsequent). It lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools (e.g., when to use this versus 'cite'), but the context signals and mode detail provide sufficient guidance for a legal agent.

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/russellbrenner/jurisd'

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