legal-mcp-toolkit

name	legal-mcp-toolkit
description	Teaches an agent the methodology for chaining the Legal MCP Server's 27 tools into complete legal workflows — contract risk triage, negotiation prep, privilege-safe AI review, legal research, brief drafting, citation cleanup, deep clause analysis, and batch document analysis. Use whenever the Legal MCP Server is connected and the user asks to review or compare a contract, negotiate terms, research case law or statutes, draft a brief or motion, validate citations, check whether a document is safe to send through an AI provider, run deep clause reasoning, or process a batch of documents.
compatibility	Requires the Legal MCP Server (this repository) connected as an MCP server.

Legal MCP Toolkit

The Legal MCP Server gives an agent 27 tools (research, citation, contract, document, privilege, brief, analysis-queue, integrations). Tools are the execution layer — this skill is the methodology layer: which tools to call, in what order, and what to surface to the user. It does not replace attorney judgment; every workflow ends with a disclaimer, not a conclusion.

Non-negotiable rules

1. Never present tool output as legal advice. Every contract/document/ negotiation/privilege tool response includes a disclaimer field (notice, disclaimer, or similar) — always surface it to the user.
2. Never treat demo content as authority. Bundled cases, statutes, and contracts require LEGAL_MCP_DEMO_MODE=true and every response is labeled demo-only. Use them for demonstrations, never to verify a real citation.
3. Prefer CourtListener over PACER when a live source is genuinely needed — PACER bills per page/search and is disabled by default for a reason.
4. Real files over seed IDs when a file exists. If the user has an actual .docx/.txt contract, use analyze_document / compare_documents / extract_contract_metadata, not the seed-data compare_contracts (which only works on template IDs like standard_nda_template).
5. Check privilege before routing to a non-local AI provider. If a document looks privileged (attorney-client communication, work product, litigation strategy) and the user plans to paste it into a general AI chatbot, run check_privilege_risk first and surface the result before proceeding.
6. Respect feature flags. Categories can be disabled via LEGAL_MCP_ENABLE_* env vars. If a tool is missing, read legal://server-config before assuming the server is broken.

Tool quick reference

Category	Tools
Research	search_precedents, search_case_law, extract_statute, research_legal_issue
Citation	validate_citation, normalize_citation, check_demo_database
Contract	compare_contracts, analyze_clauses, extract_clauses, suggest_clause_alternatives, generate_negotiation_guide, deep_analyze_clause
Document	analyze_document, compare_documents, export_analysis_report, extract_contract_metadata
Privilege	check_privilege_risk
Brief	generate_brief_outline, create_argument_structure, generate_issue_statement
Analysis Queue	queue_document_analysis, get_analysis_status, get_analysis_result, list_analysis_jobs
Integrations	integration_status, search_live_case_law

Full descriptions: README.md § Capabilities. Full worked examples for every workflow below: WORKFLOW_EXAMPLES.md.

Workflow patterns

Pick the pattern that matches the user's request, then follow its tool sequence. Patterns can be combined (e.g., negotiation prep often follows contract risk triage).

1. Contract risk triage

Trigger: "review this contract", "what's risky here", "compare these two NDAs"

1. Real file → analyze_document(file_path). Seed template → analyze_clauses(contract_id).
2. Two versions to diff → compare_documents (files) or compare_contracts (template IDs).
3. Risky clause needs rewording → suggest_clause_alternatives(clause_text, clause_type).
4. Deeper reasoning needed → deep_analyze_clause(clause_text, clause_type) (uses MCP sampling when the client supports it; otherwise returns heuristics only).
5. Deliverable needed → export_analysis_report(analysis_json, output_path).

2. Negotiation prep

Trigger: "we're the buyer/seller, what should we push back on", "negotiation guide"

1. generate_negotiation_guide(contract_id, party_role, focus_areas?) — party_role must be buyer, seller, or mutual; it flips the recommended position on the same clause.
2. Surface recommended_position (accept/negotiate/reject) with rationale and fallback_text per clause. Lead with HIGH-risk clauses.
3. If the contract is a real file rather than a seed ID, run analyze_document first and paraphrase the negotiation logic manually — generate_negotiation_guide only accepts contract IDs from the template library.

3. Contract metadata lookup

Trigger: "what's the governing law/term/liability cap in this contract"

1. extract_contract_metadata(file_path) — pure regex extraction, not legal judgment.
2. Fields not found return null; don't guess on the agent's behalf — tell the user which fields need manual confirmation (see confidence_notes).

4. Privilege-safe AI review

Trigger: "can I paste this into ChatGPT/Claude", "is this privileged", document mentions attorney-client communications or litigation strategy

1. check_privilege_risk(file_path, inference_provider, counsel_directed).
2. inference_provider options with known postures: ollama, azure_openai, vertex_ai, openrouter, openai, anthropic (default unknown = worst case).
3. On HIGH/CRITICAL, tell the user not to proceed without attorney authorization; suggest ollama (local, zero data retention) as the lower-risk alternative rather than silently downgrading the risk yourself.

5. Legal research

Trigger: "find precedents for...", "what does this statute say", "research this issue"

1. Read legal://server-config to determine whether demo content is active; never present demo results as real authority.
2. Use research_legal_issue or search_live_case_law for real case-law research after confirming live integrations are enabled (integration_status).
3. Use validate_citation only for structure/reporter-format checks. Confirm existence and good-law status through an authoritative live source and attorney review.

6. Brief / motion drafting

Trigger: "draft a motion", "outline this brief", "argument structure"

1. generate_brief_outline(case_type, motion_type, jurisdiction) for the skeleton.
2. create_argument_structure for IRAC-style argument scaffolding per section.
3. generate_issue_statement to frame the question presented from facts + law.
4. Fill in authorities using the research pattern above before finalizing.

7. Citation cleanup

Trigger: "check these citations", "format to Bluebook"

1. validate_citation to catch structural issues.
2. normalize_citation to apply Bluebook-style spacing/abbreviations.
3. If demo mode is intentionally active, check_demo_database can show whether a citation appears in the sample dataset. A match is not verification that the case exists or remains good law.

8. Batch / async document analysis

Trigger: "queue these contracts for review", "analyze this batch overnight"

1. queue_document_analysis(file_path, analysis_notes) per file — returns a job_id immediately (analysis runs inline; status is complete or error right away in the current implementation, but always poll rather than assume).
2. get_analysis_status(job_id) / get_analysis_result(job_id) to check and retrieve.
3. list_analysis_jobs() to give the user a full batch summary.
4. This queue is a local AI job store, not a submission to human reviewers — don't imply a human will review queued jobs unless the user has a separate attorney-review process.

Response shape

For every workflow, close with:

• The disclaimer text verbatim from the tool response (don't paraphrase it away).
• Concrete next steps (route to counsel, re-run with different parameters, file the export, etc.) — mirror the "Next Steps" pattern used in WORKFLOW_EXAMPLES.md.