AI Law Framework
REMOTE · AILAWFRAMEWORK.COM
Decide whether AI may be used for a legal task, who drafts and who checks. Australian law.
Available components
Last scanned (8 hours ago)
Scores higher than 87% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Security
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security80
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability82
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 3489 tokens (~99/item across 35 items; 19 tools + 16 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management63
- Stability observed for 19 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage94
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 82% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 19 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 21 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 4 Nov 26 +1
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Tool “assess_tool_use” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- 2 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 50 to 53. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 15 days of observed history at the previous scan, 16 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 1 Nov 26 0
- Tool “find_rules” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- 31 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 29 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 37 to 40. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 12 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 27 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 30 to 33. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 9 days of observed history at the previous scan, 10 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 26 Oct 26 0
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Schema quality: 2672 → 3457 ▼ functional
- MCP protocol: Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28. functional
- New prompt “practice-area-class-actions” functional
- New prompt “practice-area-commercial” functional
- New prompt “practice-area-criminal” functional
- New prompt “practice-area-employment” functional
- New prompt “practice-area-family” functional
- New prompt “practice-area-personal-injury” functional
- New prompt “practice-area-property” functional
- New prompt “practice-area-wills-estates” functional
- MCP protocol version: 2026-07-28 → 2025-11-25 functional
- New resource “legal-assistant” functional
- New tool “assess_tool_use” functional
- New tool “disclosure_duties” functional
- New tool “find_rules” functional
- New tool “get_practice_area_prompt” functional
- New tool “refine_legal_query” functional
- 25 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 23 to 27. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 7 days of observed history at the previous scan, 8 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://ailawframework.com/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=ailawframework.com | CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 16 Sept 2026 | 15 Dec 2026 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 5b79a0698ca56aec77adb9be7dfb03508bf |
| SANs: ailawframework.com | ||||||
| CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | a20253f15f2691c05dc1ce13b9bcca4e |
| CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | f24b6d17f9d9ad7cb1c9fea78782699f |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of ailawframework.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | present | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| ailawframework.com. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=63072000; includeSubDomains; preload |
| content-security-policy | default-src 'self'; script-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline' https://va.vercel-scripts.com https://vitals.vercel-insights.com; style-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline'; img-src 'self' data: blob: https://va.vercel-scripts.com https://vitals.vercel-insights.com; font-src 'self' data:; connect-src 'self' https://zufgybubyuzqonkgvnyf.supabase.co wss://zufgybubyuzqonkgvnyf.supabase.co https://va.vercel-scripts.com https://vitals.vercel-insights.com; worker-src 'self' blob:; frame-ancestors 'self'; base-uri 'self'; form-action 'self'; object-src 'none' |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | SAMEORIGIN |
| referrer-policy | strict-origin-when-cross-origin |
| permissions-policy | camera=(), microphone=(), geolocation=() |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://ailawframework.com/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://ailawframework.com/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 308 | https://ailawframework.com/mcp |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
assess_and_decide Assess and decide ~206
Scores the AI option on adoption, efficiency and governance (step 2), caps governance by the recorded evidence, scores the manual route, and returns the decision, its reasons and the order of preference.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| adoption | object | yes | Adoption feasibility: the anchor that is true for this option on this task. |
| conditions | object | – | A recorded condition that removes the cause of a 2 on adoption or efficiency. |
| efficiency | object | yes | Efficiency likelihood: the anchor that is true for this option on this task. |
| efficiency_confidence | string | – | – |
| governance | object | yes | Governance suitability: the anchor that is true for this option on this task. |
| option_name | string | yes | The AI option as configured, for example "Claude Code on a Team plan". |
| outstanding | boolean | – | True when a document, setting or check is still outstanding. |
| record | string | yes | The `record` string the previous workflow tool returned, passed back unchanged. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
assess_tool_use Assess an AI tool for a task ~150
Returns the catalogue adoption, efficiency and governance for one tool on one task, plus the matching court AI rules. Unlisted tools stay not_recorded.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| forum | string | – | Optional forum code. |
| jurisdiction | string | – | Optional code: NSW, VIC, QLD, WA, SA, TAS, ACT, NT or CTH (use CTH for federal forums such as the Federal Court, FCFCOA and the Fair Work Commission). Omit it to be asked. No code is filled in for yo… |
| task | string | yes | The legal task, in a short phrase, with client names removed. |
| tool | string | yes | The AI product name or catalogue profile id. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
disclosure_duties Disclosure duties for a document ~134
Returns the stored disclosure and verification duties for a forum and a document type.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | string | yes | The document the duty is for, such as an affidavit or submissions. |
| forum | string | yes | A forum code such as nsw-supreme-court or federal-court. |
| jurisdiction | string | – | Optional code: NSW, VIC, QLD, WA, SA, TAS, ACT, NT or CTH (use CTH for federal forums such as the Federal Court, FCFCOA and the Fair Work Commission). Omit it to be asked. No code is filled in for yo… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
find_rules Find court AI rules ~174
Returns the stored court and tribunal AI instruments that match a task and a forum, using the catalogue rule matcher. With a forum named, guidance for the jurisdiction that is not tagged to that forum is returned apart, in `profession_guidance`; read it too.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| forum | string | – | A forum code such as ncat or federal-court. Omit it to be asked which court applies. |
| jurisdiction | string | – | Optional code: NSW, VIC, QLD, WA, SA, TAS, ACT, NT or CTH (use CTH for federal forums such as the Federal Court, FCFCOA and the Fair Work Commission). Omit it to be asked. No code is filled in for yo… |
| task | string | yes | The legal task, in a short phrase, with client names removed. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_framework Read the framework ~57
Returns the AI Law Framework’s rules: the five steps, the three pillars and their anchors, the decision rule, the four levels, the seven stages and their matrix, and the rules that admit no exception.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| part | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_jurisdiction_guidance Get a jurisdiction’s guidance ~216
Returns the framework’s notes for one jurisdiction, and which stored AI instruments apply to a task in a court or tribunal. Name the forum, or court "no" when no court is involved. A gap means no instrument is stored for that forum.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| audience | string | – | – |
| court | string | – | no when no court or tribunal is involved. |
| document_type | string | – | affidavit, witness-statement, expert-report, submissions, pleadings, contract or chronology. |
| forum | string | – | A forum code such as "ncat", "federal-court" or "vcat". Omit it to be asked which court applies. |
| jurisdiction | string | yes | A jurisdiction id or slug, for example "NSW", "VIC", "new-zealand". |
| personal_information | boolean | – | True when the work puts personal information into an AI product. |
| task | string | – | What the work is, in a short phrase. Used to recognise the document and the subject. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_practice_area_prompt Get a practice-area prompt ~107
Returns the published practice-area prompt for one Australian area. Court AI rules are attached when a jurisdiction code is given.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | string | yes | – |
| jurisdiction | string | – | Optional code: NSW, VIC, QLD, WA, SA, TAS, ACT, NT or CTH (use CTH for federal forums such as the Federal Court, FCFCOA and the Fair Work Commission). Omit it to be asked. No code is filled in for yo… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_precedent Get a precedent’s details ~91
Returns one published precedent’s details: summary, when to use it, authorities, the AI-use guidance (level, what AI may and must not do, what the lawyer checks), licence, the date it states the law as at and how the library maintains it. The text itself is available through the signed-in firm connector.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| precedent_id | string | yes | The precedent id from search_precedents. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_software_profile Get a software profile ~100
Returns the framework’s research on one AI product and plan: its facts, the governance considerations found, and the cited sources with their review dates. Accepts a profile id or a product name.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| controls | array | – | Optional control ids, such as "trainingUse" or "inferenceRegion", to return only those considerations. |
| product | string | yes | A profile id from search_library, or a product name such as "Claude Team". |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_started Get started with the framework ~66
For a new user, or when asked what this is: what the AI Law Framework decides, the first questions it asks (country, then state or territory), the five steps, the skills and starting prompts, and a fictional sample matter the user can run to see a finished work record.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_task_guidance Get a task’s guidance ~94
Returns one task from the practice library: how AI may be used, its level, what the lawyer must review, its checkpoints, restrictions and sources, and its jurisdiction versions.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| jurisdiction | string | – | Optional jurisdiction id or slug, for example "NSW", to include that version. |
| task_id | string | yes | The task id from search_library, for example "A1-A20260923-1". |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
plan_human_work Plan the human work ~74
Sets the level of each of the seven stages of the task (step 3) from the recorded answers, research and decision, and returns what the lawyer and the AI may and may not do at each stage.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| record | string | yes | The `record` string the previous workflow tool returned, passed back unchanged. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
record_answers Record the user’s answers ~109
Adds the user’s answers to the clarifying questions to the work record. Returns the questions still open, or, once all are answered, the research the task requires.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| answers | object | yes | Answers keyed by question id. `from` is "user" when the user answered when asked, or "request" when the user had already said it (then `quote` holds their words). |
| record | string | yes | The `record` string the previous workflow tool returned, passed back unchanged. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
record_research Record research findings ~75
Adds research findings, each with its source, quote and confirmation status, to the work record. Returns the required research still missing, or the scoring anchors and the governance ceiling the evidence sets.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| findings | array | yes | – |
| record | string | yes | The `record` string the previous workflow tool returned, passed back unchanged. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
refine_legal_query Refine a legal question ~79
Restates one Australian legal question and lists the clarifying questions still open: state or territory, dates, parties, forum, output and urgency.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | string | – | Optional practice-area id. Omitted means the question is classified from its words. |
| query | string | yes | The legal question, with client names and contact details removed. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_library Search the practice library ~72
Searches the framework’s published practice areas, tasks, jurisdiction versions, jurisdictions, firm-wide obligations and software profiles. Returns titles, ids and ailawframework.com links.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | string | – | – |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| query | string | yes | Words describing the task, area, jurisdiction or product. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_precedents Search the precedent library ~121
Searches the published precedent library (letters, agreements, clauses, checklists, forms, policies and more for every practice area) by title, summary and when to use it. Returns ids, titles, kinds, practice area ids, jurisdictions and the date each states the law as at. The full text is available through the signed-in firm connector.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | string | – | Optional practice area id, for example "A1". |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| query | string | yes | Words to search for, 2 to 200 characters. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
start_task Start a task under the framework ~165
Opens a work record for one legal task and returns the clarifying questions the framework needs answered (step 1, define the task), less any already answered in `answers`. The first two are the country and, in Australia, the state or territory: ask them first. Read the skill ailf://skills/ai-law-framework before the first call.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | string | – | The agent and product doing the work, for example "Claude Code" or "Codex". |
| answers | object | – | Answers keyed by question id. `from` is "user" when the user answered when asked, or "request" when the user had already said it (then `quote` holds their words). |
| request | string | yes | The user’s request, in their words. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
work_record Produce the work record ~149
Returns the work record as markdown (steps 4 and 5): the task, the evidence, the decision, the plan, what the AI did, and the checks, approval and release left for the lawyer.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_did | array | – | What the AI did, one line per stage worked on. |
| check_points | array | – | Each high-risk point to check against its document: dates, figures, key advice. |
| lawyer_checkpoints | array | – | The task’s review points from get_task_guidance. |
| notes | string | – | – |
| output | object | yes | – |
| record | string | yes | The `record` string the previous workflow tool returned, passed back unchanged. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the AI Law Framework MCP server?
AI Law Framework is a hosted endpoint at https://ailawframework.com/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · ailawframework.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-ailawframework-ai-law-framework 'https://ailawframework.com/mcp'
What is the AI Law Framework MCP server?
AI Law Framework is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.ailawframework/ai-law-framework. Decide whether AI may be used for a legal task, who drafts and who checks. Australian law. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://ailawframework.com/mcp).
Is the AI Law Framework MCP server safe to use?
AI Law Framework scores 83 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the AI Law Framework MCP server expose?
AI Law Framework exposes 19 tools: start_task, record_answers, record_research, assess_and_decide, plan_human_work, and 14 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 2,239 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the AI Law Framework MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to AI Law Framework without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the AI Law Framework MCP server still maintained?
AI Law Framework is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.