Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@@theyahia/casebook-mcp Get details for case A40-12345/2026"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MCP server for Casebook/Pravo.ru -- Russian legal case search, court documents, participant lookup, judge statistics, and hearing schedules.
Tool | Description |
| Search cases by query, INN, court, dates, type |
| Get case details and participants |
| Get hearing schedule and decisions |
| Search participants by name or INN |
| Get all cases for a participant |
| Get judge case statistics |
| Get court information |
| Get court document by ID |
Related MCP server: law-search-mcp
{
"mcpServers": {
"casebook": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@theyahia/casebook-mcp"],
"env": { "CASEBOOK_TOKEN": "<YOUR_TOKEN>" }
}
}
}Variable | Required | Description |
| Yes | API token from Casebook |
"Search for bankruptcy cases involving INN 7707083893"
"Get details for case A40-12345/2026"
"Show hearing schedule for case A40-12345/2026"
"Find all cases where Sberbank is a participant"
"Get case statistics for judge Ivanov"
"Show court info for the Moscow Arbitration Court"
"Get document doc-789 from case A40-12345/2026"
"Search for contract dispute cases from 2025"
Casebook API documentation: https://casebook.ru/
MIT
Get case details, documents, and participants by case ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes | Case ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves data but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or disclose any side effects. For a simple get, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. No extraneous text, every word is necessary.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter. The description lists what is returned (details, documents, participants) but does not specify the structure or format. Given no output schema, a bit more detail on the response would be useful, but it is mostly complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter described as 'Case ID'. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, merely restating that it fetches by case ID. Baseline for high coverage is 3, but the description fails to add value.
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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resources 'case details, documents, and participants'. It identifies the input ('by case ID') and distinguishes from siblings like get_document and get_case_events.
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 when you have a case ID, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_case_events or get_document. No exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get hearing schedule and decisions for a case.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes | Case ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description implies a read-only operation but does not disclose any specific behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is adequate but minimal.
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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema or nested objects. The description is brief but lacks details on the return format, possible filters, or date ranges, making it somewhat incomplete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'case_id', which is described as 'Case ID'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool retrieves 'hearing schedule and decisions for a case', specifying the verb 'Get' and distinct resource. It differentiates from siblings like get_case (case details) and get_document (documents).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get court information by court ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| court_id | Yes | Court ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for revealing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what permissions might be needed, or any side effects. The minimal description leaves critical behavioral aspects undisclosed.
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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without any waste.
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?
For a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could benefit from mentioning what specific court information is returned (e.g., name, address, location) to enhance completeness.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'court_id' parameter having a basic description ('Court ID'). The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 action ('Get'), the resource ('court information'), and the means ('by court ID'). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on cases, documents, or judges.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only defines the tool's basic function without contextualizing its role among siblings like search_cases or get_case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a court document by document ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | Document ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only indicates a read operation ('Get') but fails to describe what the returned document contains, any size limits, or whether it is a metadata summary or full content.
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 a single sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and gets to the point quickly.
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?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not specify the nature of the returned document (e.g., text, file, metadata), leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description adds the phrase 'by document ID' but does not explain formatting, expected values, or provide any additional semantics beyond the schema's own description.
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 action (Get) and resource (court document) with the criterion (by document ID). It is specific but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_case or get_case_events, which also retrieve by ID.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get case statistics for a judge by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| judge_name | Yes | Judge name to look up |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only vaguely states 'case statistics' without specifying what statistics are returned, nor does it mention error handling, name matching rules, or data sensitivity. This is insufficient.
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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the main purpose. It is front-loaded, though it could benefit from additional information about return values without losing conciseness.
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 focus on statistics and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify what types of statistics are provided, how to handle multiple judges with the same name, or any aggregation details. Sibling tools like search_cases might be needed for context.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds 'by name' which reinforces the parameter's role but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 action (Get) and resource (case statistics for a judge). It is not a tautology and provides a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_case or search_cases.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest alternative tools for different needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all cases for a participant by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| participant_id | Yes | Participant ID from search results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action, lacking details on side effects (none assumed), authorization, rate limits, or behavior on missing data. Minimal disclosure.
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?
Single sentence of 8 words with no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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?
No output schema and no description of return format. The tool returns a list but does not specify fields, pagination, or empty state. For a list-returning tool, the description is underinformative.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description is present ('Participant ID from search results'). The tool description adds no further semantics beyond reinforcing 'by ID'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get' and resource 'cases for a participant' with the qualifier 'all' and by 'ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_case (single case) and search_cases (search).
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 use when you have a participant ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_cases or get_case. No when-not or alternative tools mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search court cases by query, participant INN, court, dates, or case type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| court | No | Court name or ID | |
| query | No | Text search query | |
| date_to | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| case_type | No | Case type filter | |
| date_from | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| participant_inn | No | INN of a case participant |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or limitations. The tool is assumed to be a read operation, but this is not stated.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the essential purpose. No wasted words.
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?
For a search tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return format, pagination, or ordering. While adequate for a basic search, it lacks completeness given the complexity and sibling tools.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enumerates parameter categories (query, participant INN, court, dates, case type) but adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Each parameter's description in the schema is sufficient.
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 'Search court cases by query, participant INN, court, dates, or case type' clearly states the action (search) and the resource (court cases), distinguishing it from siblings like get_case (single case retrieval) and search_participants (people search).
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 lists search criteria but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_case for a known case ID, search_participants for participants). The usage context is implied but not clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search case participants by name or INN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name_or_inn | Yes | Participant name or INN |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the search function, omitting details like idempotency, pagination, result format, or error handling (e.g., behavior when no results found).
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 very concise at two sentences with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness.
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?
For a simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on output behavior (e.g., what fields are returned) or edge cases.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the single parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it simply restates the parameter's purpose.
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 ('Search') and resource ('case participants') along with the specific search criteria ('by name or INN'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_cases and get_participant_cases.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_participant_cases. There are no exclusions or context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.1get_caseget_case_eventsget_court_infoget_documentget_judge_statsget_participant_casessearch_casessearch_participantsEach tool targets a distinct resource or aspect (case details, events, court info, documents, judge stats, participant cases, search). No overlap; all clearly differentiated by resource and query type.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with verbs 'get' or 'search'. No mixing of styles or irregular naming.
8 tools cover the core query operations for a court case system. The count is well-scoped without being excessive or insufficient.
Covers major query needs: cases, events, documents, courts, judges, participants. Minor gaps like listing all courts or judges are absent but not critical for typical read-only use.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Search U.S. case law, fetch opinions, and ask matter-aware legal questions over your documents.
Resolve, search and verify legal citations against the official sources, with provenance.
Simplified lookup of a person's or company's lawsuits from the CPF or CNPJ. Platform-hosted, no cred
Case law search, court decisions and súmulas, across indexed public sources (STF, STJ, TST, state co
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/theYahia/casebook-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
