estonian-mcp

check_legalese

Read-onlyIdempotent

Flags archaic filler, stock phrases, and over-long sentences in Estonian statutes and contracts, then suggests plain-language rewrites that preserve legal meaning.

Instructions

Plain-language aid for Estonian statutes and contracts; rewrites must keep the legal meaning.

issues: archaic filler and stock phrases with a plainer suggestion, and over-long or comma-heavy sentences to split. terms_of_art: legal terms (first use per lemma) to keep verbatim, never swapped for a general synonym. Starter lexicons: an empty or short issues list does not mean the text is plain, and an unlisted word can still be a term of art. For reports and business prose use check_officialese.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Estonian statute or contract text.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issues`	No
`terms_of_art`	No
`summary_estonian`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed14 schema fields changedv0.9.0Oct 24, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / text / description
```
Previous value: -"Estonian legal text to lint for plain-language simplification while protecting legal terms of art."New value: +"Estonian statute or contract text."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / text / title
```
Removed value: -"Text"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"check_legaleseArguments"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / issues / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / issues / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / issues / title
```
Removed value: -"Issues"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / note
```
Removed value: -{
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Note",
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / summary_estonian / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / summary_estonian / title
```
Removed value: -"Summary Estonian"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / terms_of_art / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / terms_of_art / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / terms_of_art / title
```
Removed value: -"Terms Of Art"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / text
```
Removed value: -{
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Text",
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- removedOutput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"_LegaleseResult"
```
Addedv0.5.6Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely useful recall caveats beyond them: the lexicons are starters, an empty or short issues list does not mean the text is plain, and an unlisted word can still be a term of art. That false-negative warning is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before trusting a clean result. The one ambiguity is whether the tool returns rewrites or merely flags them — "rewrites must keep the legal meaning" could be read either way.

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?

Very dense and front-loaded: domain, output categories, caveats, then the sibling pointer, in four compact clauses. The telegraphic "issues:" / "terms_of_art:" fragment style is efficient but slightly harder to parse than full sentences.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't document return values, and it still summarizes both result lists plus their reliability limits. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and full annotations, an agent has nearly everything needed; only the flag-vs-rewrite question remains open.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage that already says "Estonian statute or contract text." The description restates the same domain constraint but adds no syntax, length, or formatting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the specific resource (Estonian statutes and contracts), the function (plain-language aid / legalese detection), and enumerates the two result categories: issues (archaic filler, stock phrases, over-long or comma-heavy sentences) and terms_of_art to keep verbatim. It also names the sibling it is not (check_officialese), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

"For reports and business prose use check_officialese" gives an explicit alternative with the selecting condition, and "rewrites must keep the legal meaning" frames the constraint under which results should be applied. It stops short of stating exclusions such as non-Estonian input, but the domain scoping largely covers that.

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