{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"smithery_alexandria-shai-eden-caselaw","slug":"alexandria-shai-eden-caselaw","name":"Case Law Search","type":"mcp","url":"https://smithery.ai/servers/alexandria-shai-eden/caselaw","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/alexandria-shai-eden-caselaw","categories":["research-search"],"tags":["mcp","model-context-protocol","smithery:alexandria-shai-eden/caselaw"],"pricing":{"model":"open_source","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"smithery_alexandria-shai-eden-caselaw__cap_0","uri":"capability://search.retrieval.full.text.search.across.9m.court.opinions","name":"full-text search across 9m+ court opinions","description":"Enables semantic and keyword-based search across a corpus of 9 million+ court opinions using MCP protocol integration. The capability exposes search endpoints that accept natural language queries and structured legal search parameters, returning ranked opinion documents with metadata including case names, citations, court information, and decision dates. Implements query parsing and relevance ranking to surface the most pertinent legal precedents from the massive opinion database.","intents":["Find relevant case law and legal precedents matching specific legal issues or fact patterns","Discover how courts have ruled on similar cases in the past","Research judicial interpretation of specific statutes or legal doctrines","Build legal research workflows that integrate case law discovery into AI-assisted legal analysis"],"best_for":["Legal researchers and attorneys building AI-assisted legal research tools","LLM application developers integrating legal precedent discovery into agents","Law firms automating case research and due diligence workflows","Legal tech startups building on top of comprehensive case law datasets"],"limitations":["Search quality depends on query formulation — poorly structured queries may miss relevant cases","No real-time updates — corpus freshness depends on upstream data provider update cadence","MCP protocol adds network latency for each search request compared to local indexing","Search results limited to opinions in the indexed corpus; unpublished opinions may not be included"],"requires":["MCP client implementation (Claude Desktop, custom MCP host, or compatible tool)","Network connectivity to the MCP server endpoint","Understanding of legal citation formats and case law search syntax for optimal results"],"input_types":["text (natural language queries)","structured search parameters (jurisdiction, date range, court level, legal topics)"],"output_types":["structured data (case metadata: name, citation, court, date, opinion text)","ranked result sets with relevance scores"],"categories":["search-retrieval","legal-research"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_alexandria-shai-eden-caselaw__cap_1","uri":"capability://search.retrieval.federal.docket.search.and.retrieval","name":"federal docket search and retrieval","description":"Enables searching and retrieving federal court dockets, case filings, and procedural documents through MCP protocol. The capability parses docket entries, extracts filing metadata (dates, parties, document types, judges), and returns structured information about case progression, motions, and procedural history. Implements docket-specific indexing to surface relevant filings based on case identifiers, party names, or filing date ranges.","intents":["Monitor ongoing federal litigation and track case procedural status","Research how specific parties have litigated in federal courts","Analyze litigation patterns and procedural strategies across multiple federal cases","Build legal workflow automation that pulls current docket information into case management systems"],"best_for":["Litigation teams tracking active federal cases and procedural deadlines","Legal researchers analyzing litigation patterns and judicial behavior","LLM agents that need to incorporate current docket status into legal analysis","Legal tech platforms automating docket monitoring and case intelligence"],"limitations":["Docket data may lag behind real-time court filings by hours or days depending on update frequency","Limited to federal courts — state court dockets not included in this capability","No automatic alert or notification system — requires polling for case updates","Docket parsing accuracy depends on court's filing format consistency"],"requires":["MCP client with tool-use capability","Federal case identifiers (docket numbers, party names, or court information)","Network connectivity to the MCP server"],"input_types":["text (case identifiers, party names, docket numbers)","structured parameters (court, date range, filing type filters)"],"output_types":["structured docket data (filing dates, document types, parties, judges, procedural status)","document metadata and links to full filings"],"categories":["search-retrieval","legal-research"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_alexandria-shai-eden-caselaw__cap_2","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.mcp.tool.use.integration.for.legal.research.agents","name":"mcp tool-use integration for legal research agents","description":"Exposes case law and docket search capabilities as MCP tools that LLM applications can invoke during reasoning and planning. The implementation follows MCP's tool-calling protocol, allowing Claude and other compatible LLMs to automatically invoke searches, interpret results, and incorporate legal research into multi-step reasoning chains. Handles tool parameter validation, result formatting, and error handling to ensure reliable integration with LLM planning systems.","intents":["Enable Claude and other LLMs to autonomously research case law during legal analysis tasks","Build multi-step legal reasoning agents that combine case law search with document analysis","Create legal research workflows where LLMs decide when and how to search for precedents","Integrate legal research into broader AI-assisted legal work without manual API calls"],"best_for":["AI application developers building legal research agents with Claude","Teams deploying MCP servers and wanting to add legal research capabilities","Organizations building AI-assisted legal workflows that require autonomous research","Developers creating multi-tool LLM applications that combine legal research with other capabilities"],"limitations":["Tool invocation adds latency to LLM reasoning — each search requires network round-trip","LLM must be configured to understand when to invoke legal research tools — poor prompting reduces effectiveness","No built-in caching of search results — repeated queries for same legal issue trigger new searches","Tool parameter schema must be understood by the LLM — complex search syntax may confuse some models"],"requires":["MCP-compatible LLM client (Claude Desktop, custom MCP host, or compatible tool)","Proper MCP server configuration and tool schema registration","LLM system prompt or instructions that guide when to invoke legal research tools"],"input_types":["tool parameters (search queries, filters, case identifiers)","LLM-generated function calls following MCP tool schema"],"output_types":["structured tool results (case metadata, docket information)","formatted for LLM consumption in reasoning chains"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_alexandria-shai-eden-caselaw__cap_3","uri":"capability://search.retrieval.jurisdiction.filtered.case.law.search","name":"jurisdiction-filtered case law search","description":"Enables filtering case law search results by jurisdiction (federal circuits, specific courts, state courts where available) to surface precedents relevant to specific legal venues. The capability parses jurisdiction metadata from opinions and allows queries to be constrained to particular courts or court hierarchies. Implements jurisdiction-aware ranking to prioritize cases from the most relevant courts for a given legal question.","intents":["Find precedents from the specific court or circuit that will hear a case","Research how different jurisdictions have ruled on the same legal issue","Identify circuit splits and conflicting precedents across different courts","Build jurisdiction-aware legal research workflows that automatically filter for relevant courts"],"best_for":["Litigation teams researching precedents for specific courts or circuits","Legal researchers analyzing jurisdictional variations in case law","LLM agents that need to filter research results by court relevance","Multi-jurisdictional law firms automating jurisdiction-specific research"],"limitations":["Jurisdiction metadata accuracy depends on opinion indexing quality","Some older opinions may have incomplete or ambiguous jurisdiction information","No support for state court opinions in all jurisdictions — federal coverage is primary","Jurisdiction filtering may exclude relevant persuasive authority from other courts"],"requires":["MCP client with tool-use capability","Knowledge of relevant jurisdiction identifiers (circuit numbers, court abbreviations)","Network connectivity to MCP server"],"input_types":["text (search query)","structured jurisdiction parameters (court, circuit, jurisdiction code)"],"output_types":["filtered case results ranked by jurisdiction relevance","jurisdiction metadata for each result"],"categories":["search-retrieval","legal-research"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_alexandria-shai-eden-caselaw__cap_4","uri":"capability://search.retrieval.citation.based.case.law.retrieval","name":"citation-based case law retrieval","description":"Enables direct retrieval of cases by legal citation (e.g., '123 F.3d 456', 'Smith v. Jones, 789 U.S. 101') without requiring full-text search. The capability parses citation formats, normalizes them, and retrieves the corresponding opinion from the indexed corpus. Implements citation validation and error handling to guide users toward correct citation formats when lookups fail.","intents":["Quickly retrieve specific cases when you already know the citation","Validate and resolve ambiguous or partially-known citations","Build citation-aware workflows that automatically fetch referenced cases","Integrate case retrieval into document analysis pipelines that extract citations"],"best_for":["Legal researchers and attorneys who know specific cases they need to reference","LLM applications that extract citations from documents and need to fetch full opinions","Citation analysis tools that need to resolve references to specific cases","Legal document processing pipelines that require citation-to-opinion mapping"],"limitations":["Requires properly formatted citations — malformed citations may not resolve","Limited to citations in the indexed corpus — very recent cases may not be available","No fuzzy matching for misspelled or partially-known citations","Citation format variations (e.g., different reporter abbreviations) may require normalization"],"requires":["MCP client with tool-use capability","Properly formatted legal citations (standard reporter format)","Network connectivity to MCP server"],"input_types":["text (legal citations in standard formats)"],"output_types":["full opinion text and metadata","case information (parties, court, date, holding)"],"categories":["search-retrieval","legal-research"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":41,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["MCP client implementation (Claude Desktop, custom MCP host, or compatible tool)","Network connectivity to the MCP server endpoint","Understanding of legal citation formats and case law search syntax for optimal results","MCP client with tool-use capability","Federal case identifiers (docket numbers, party names, or court information)","Network connectivity to the MCP server","MCP-compatible LLM client (Claude Desktop, custom MCP host, or compatible tool)","Proper MCP server configuration and tool schema registration","LLM system prompt or instructions that guide when to invoke legal research tools","Knowledge of relevant jurisdiction identifiers (circuit numbers, court abbreviations)"],"failure_modes":["Search quality depends on query formulation — poorly structured queries may miss relevant cases","No real-time updates — corpus freshness depends on upstream data provider update cadence","MCP protocol adds network latency for each search request compared to local indexing","Search results limited to opinions in the indexed corpus; unpublished opinions may not be included","Docket data may lag behind real-time court filings by hours or days depending on update frequency","Limited to federal courts — state court dockets not included in this capability","No automatic alert or notification system — requires polling for case updates","Docket parsing accuracy depends on court's filing format consistency","Tool invocation adds latency to LLM reasoning — each search requires network round-trip","LLM must be configured to understand when to invoke legal research tools — poor prompting reduces effectiveness","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.7390661256745689,"quality":0.2,"ecosystem":0.38999999999999996,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.5,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.15,"match_graph":0.23,"freshness":0.12}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:25.635Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T15:18:25.566Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=alexandria-shai-eden-caselaw","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=alexandria-shai-eden-caselaw"}},"signature":"PbCdqMjBVfIizbq53IkSyGrl7eivIv4ywkmhiiB1u4gqsyhe9bsOnrGe7jl5mX9dK0GRH+qm3OA1zg6S6XyBAg==","signedAt":"2026-06-20T15:07:15.881Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/alexandria-shai-eden-caselaw","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/alexandria-shai-eden-caselaw","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=alexandria-shai-eden-caselaw","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}