MCP

Integrate Midpage's legal database with AI assistants using the Model Context Protocol.

Note: MCP supports court opinion research. Federal docket report and filing analysis tools, plus statute and regulation tools (searchLaws, analyzeLaw), are available in preview in v3.

Versioning

These docs describe the current MCP contract, v3.

Midpage uses major versions for tool contract changes that integrations may need to account for, such as output schema changes or newly introduced tools. If your integration depends on fixed tool schemas or output fields, use a pinned version endpoint.

Previous version docs and migration notes:

• MCP v2: https://app.midpage.ai/mcp/v2
• MCP v1: https://app.midpage.ai/mcp/v1
• MCP changelog

Base URL

https://app.midpage.ai/mcp/v3

Use this pinned URL for the v3 contract documented here.

If you want your integration to automatically receive the latest tool implementations, use the unversioned URL instead:

https://app.midpage.ai/mcp

Authentication

Midpage supports two authentication models for MCP integrations.

1. API Key

Use API key auth for non-interactive access, server-side jobs, or any integration that should run under one shared credential.

Generate an API key in the Developer Portal. If you need help, contact support@midpage.ai. Then send it in your MCP request headers as:

Authorization: Bearer <api_key>

2. OAuth

Use OAuth when your client should connect each user to their own Midpage account. Each user will need a Midpage account before they can sign in and authorize your client.

For most customers, the easiest setup is:

1. Point your client at https://app.midpage.ai/mcp/v3
2. Let your MCP or OAuth library follow Midpage's discovery metadata and register a client automatically if it supports dynamic client registration
3. Let the user sign in and approve access when prompted

Most MCP clients should not need pre-provisioned OAuth app credentials. Midpage's Clerk auth server supports dynamic client registration, so compatible clients can create their own credentials automatically. If your client cannot do that and needs a pre-provisioned OAuth app, contact Midpage.

GET https://clerk.midpage.ai/oauth/authorize?
  response_type=code&
  client_id=YOUR_CLIENT_ID&
  redirect_uri=https://your-app.com/oauth/callback&
  resource=https%3A%2F%2Fapp.midpage.ai&
  scope=profile%20email%20openid%20offline_access&
  state=RANDOM_VALUE&
  code_challenge=BASE64URL_SHA256(code_verifier)&
  code_challenge_method=S256

curl -X POST "https://clerk.midpage.ai/oauth/token" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" \
  -d "grant_type=authorization_code" \
  -d "client_id=YOUR_CLIENT_ID" \
  -d "code=AUTHORIZATION_CODE" \
  -d "redirect_uri=https://your-app.com/oauth/callback" \
  -d "resource=https://app.midpage.ai" \
  -d "code_verifier=YOUR_CODE_VERIFIER"

curl -X POST "https://clerk.midpage.ai/oauth/token" \
  -u "YOUR_CLIENT_ID:YOUR_CLIENT_SECRET" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" \
  -d "grant_type=authorization_code" \
  -d "code=AUTHORIZATION_CODE" \
  -d "redirect_uri=https://your-app.com/oauth/callback" \
  -d "resource=https://app.midpage.ai"

Authorization: Bearer <access_token>

Testing in Hosted MCP Clients

If you just want to try Midpage in Claude, Codex, Perplexity, Cursor, or another hosted MCP client, add https://app.midpage.ai/mcp/v3 and sign in with your Midpage account when prompted.

You can create a free trial account at app.midpage.ai. For production integrations, use API key auth or OAuth as described above.

Available Tools

The latest MCP contract exposes:

• search
• findInOpinion
• analyzeOpinion
• analyzeDocketReport (preview)
• analyzeDocketFiling (preview)
• searchLaws (preview)
• analyzeLaw (preview)

The docket tools and the laws tools are in preview: available now, but their contracts may change as we refine the workflows.

search

Search US case law across federal and state courts. Returns metadata, highlights, and citator treatment data.

Parameters:

If you filter on publishStatus, consider also running a parallel query with "unknown" because some jurisdictions have missing or uncertain publication metadata.

Example:

{
  "queries": [
    {
      "query": "breach of fiduciary duty elements",
      "jurisdictionType": "state_and_federal",
      "states": ["California"],
      "publishStatus": "published"
    },
    {
      "query": "breach of fiduciary duty elements",
      "jurisdictionType": "state_and_federal",
      "states": ["California"],
      "publishStatus": "unknown"
    }
  ]
}

findInOpinion

Find quotable passages within a single opinion using keyword search.

Parameters:

* Provide one of opinionId, reporterCitation, or docket

Example:

{
  "opinionId": "7228818",
  "query": "minimum contacts purposeful availment"
}

analyzeOpinion

Reads the full document, then answers your question and returns the answer alongside text excerpts.

Accepts either opinionId, reporterCitation, or docket as input.

Parameters:

* Provide one of opinionId, reporterCitation, or docket

Example:

{
  "reporterCitation": "556 U.S. 662",
  "question": "What standard does this case establish for pleading requirements?"
}

Output fields:

Example output:

{
  "opinionId": "7228818",
  "question": "What does this case hold?",
  "citation": "Example v. Case, 1 F.4th 1 (9th Cir. 2024)",
  "url": "https://app.midpage.ai/document/7228818",
  "supportedPropositions": [
    {
      "proposition": "The court adopted the rule.",
      "quote": "We adopt the rule.",
      "scope": "Applies in the stated procedural posture.",
      "centrality": "core_holding",
      "opinionSection": "Smith, Concurring",
      "deeplinkURL": "https://app.midpage.ai/document/7228818?lines=10-12"
    }
  ],
  "doesNotAddress": [],
  "summary": "The court adopted a rule.",
  "disposition": "affirming judgment",
  "jurisdiction": "9th Circuit",
  "treatment": {
    "status": "positive",
    "citedBy": 10
  }
}

analyzeDocketReport (preview)

Analyze a federal docket report and answer a docket-level question. Use this for case snapshots, recent activity, procedural posture, service, complaint history, motion history, deadlines, and identifying filings that should be reviewed next.

This tool answers from the docket sheet. If the text of a specific filing is needed, use analyzeDocketFiling with the returned case.caseId and a relevantEntries[].filingId.

Parameters:

Example:

{
  "court": "N.D. Cal.",
  "docketNumber": "4:24-cv-04722",
  "caseName": "Musk v. Altman",
  "question": "Give me a case snapshot and identify the operative complaint."
}

Output fields:

analyzeDocketFiling (preview)

Analyze one docket filing selected from analyzeDocketReport and answer a focused question using passages from that filing. Use this when the user needs to understand what a specific filing says, not just what the docket entry says.

Parameters:

Example:

{
  "caseId": "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000",
  "filingId": "11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111",
  "question": "What claims are asserted in this complaint?"
}

Output fields:

When citing filing content in a user-facing answer, hyperlink the citation to filing.url. Include the ECF number in the citation when available, for example: [Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 5, ECF No. 30 (Mar. 3, 2020)](<filing.url>).

searchLaws (preview)

Full-text search over statutes, regulations, constitutions, and agency guidance — US federal plus all 50 states and DC. Use it to FIND the governing provision, then call analyzeLaw with the result's id before citing it. Results are current law by default (see the Laws API guide for the currency derivation). Inputs are strict: unknown keys are rejected rather than silently ignored.

Parameters:

Returns:

Never cite from snippets — they are relevance context. Call analyzeLaw with the result id and quote from its verified passages.

Example:

{
  "query": "telehealth prescribing controlled substances",
  "collectionTypes": ["regulation"],
  "states": ["California", "Texas"]
}

analyzeLaw (preview)

Analyze a statute, regulation, constitutional provision, or agency guidance document against a specific legal question, returning verified verbatim passages — the document text is analyzed internally and raw text is never returned. Resolves to the CURRENT version by default (see the Laws API guide for how currency is derived); container nodes return their children for navigation; versioned provisions return the full version chain with dates.

Parameters (provide exactly one of the four lookup keys):

* Provide exactly one of citation, registerCitation, path, or id

Returns:

Example:

{
  "citation": "21 C.F.R. § 820.30",
  "question": "What design control requirements apply to medical device manufacturers?"
}

Changelog

See the MCP changelog for version history and migration notes.