Use Legal Counsel Prover with your AI.
Connect your account once and let the AI you already use work with it, without building another integration. AI agents cite fabricated statutes, ignore deadlines, and deliver one-sided legal memos. This capability forces rigorous reasoning: identify jurisdiction, cite verifi
Developed, maintained, and hosted by Vinkius.
MCP VERIFIED · PRODUCTION READY · VINKIUS GUARANTEED
Waiting for input…
Works with modern AI clients that support MCP, including ChatGPT, Claude, Cursor, and more.
Complete set · 1 capability
The complete Legal Counsel Prover capability set.
These are the exact actions your AI can choose when you ask it to work with Legal Counsel Prover.
01
1 capability in this set.
Part of 1 available through Legal Counsel Prover.
- 01
Validate legal analysis
You must: (1) identify the EXACT jurisdiction. country, state/province, federal vs. state, competent court, basis for jurisdiction (domicile, contract clause, subject matter). "Under applicable law" is never acceptable, (2) cite SPECIFIC legal bases. statute number and section, OR case name with Bluebook citation (volume, reporter, page, court, year), OR regulation with issuing body. Every citation must be verifiable by another attorney, (3) map ALL procedural requirements. statute of limitations with specific period and accrual date, mandatory pre-litigation steps (notice, mediation, administrative exhaustion), filing rules, appeal deadlines. Missing a deadline is malpractice, (4) address the STRONGEST adverse position. what the opposing party will argue, contrary precedents in the jurisdiction, factual weaknesses in the client's position. ABA Rule 3.3(a)(2) mandates disclosure of adverse authority, (5) connect every element to the CLIENT'S specific facts. dates, parties, events, documents, evidence. A framework without facts is a textbook, not counsel. If rejected, fix the specific gap before advising. Structured reflection capability for legal analysis. forces jurisdictional precision, verifiable citations, procedural mapping, adverse engagement, and fact-pattern connection before any counsel is delivered. Catches Jurisdiction Blind (analyzing a contract dispute without identifying whether state or federal court has subject matter jurisdiction, which state's substantive law governs under Erie, or whether a forum selection clause controls. "under applicable law" is not jurisdiction analysis. A California non-compete analysis that ignores Business and Professions Code § 16600 is malpractice. A diversity jurisdiction claim that does not verify complete diversity and amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 fails at the threshold), Basis Unverifiable (citing "the relevant statute provides" without naming it. LLMs hallucinate 30-40% of legal citations. "Smith v. Jones (2019)" with no reporter volume, no page number, no court, no holding is unverifiable. A proper Bluebook citation: "Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). held that a complaint must plead facts stating a claim plausible on its face." If another attorney cannot locate and verify the citation, it does not exist), Procedurally Negligent (missing a statute of limitations is malpractice, not an oversight. a personal injury claim in New York has a 3-year SOL under CPLR § 214. A mandatory pre-litigation notice under the Federal Tort Claims Act requires 2 years from accrual. A motion to compel arbitration must be filed before answering the complaint or waiver applies. Every procedural requirement has a deadline. missing one forfeits the client's rights), One-Sided Analysis (presenting only favorable authority without addressing the strongest counterargument. ABA Model Rule 3.3(a)(2) requires disclosure of directly adverse controlling authority in the jurisdiction. "There are no counterarguments" means you have not researched the issue. Every legal position has an adverse authority. the opposing counsel will find it even if you do not), and Fact Disconnected (delivering a generic legal framework without connecting it to the client's specific dates, parties, events, documents, and evidence. "breach of contract requires offer, acceptance, consideration, and breach" is a textbook, not counsel. "On March 15, 2024, the defendant signed the SaaS agreement [Exhibit A] containing a 12-month minimum commitment at $4,200/month" is fact-connected analysis). Call once per legal question or client matter
Observed, not estimated
842ms average. Fast in production.
Legal Counsel Prover is checked daily against the live service.
- Fastest day
- 670ms
- Slowest day
- 1107ms
- 14-day trend
- Slowing+14%
Connect your client
One URL. Every client.
Activate the Connector, copy your link, and paste it into the client you already use. 1 capability arrives ready to run.
Preview access · not provider authentication
The vk_preview_* token belongs to Vinkius preview infrastructure. It lets Claude discover and display the capabilities of Legal Counsel Prover, so you can see the experience inside your AI.
It does not authenticate your account with Legal Counsel Prover. Actions requiring credentials or live account data may not run until you activate the Connector and authorize the service.
Legal Counsel Prover Connector
You're all set. Choose your MCP client and follow the setup instructions.
https://edge.vinkius.com/vk_preview_XD3ewFkU9Cn93FzWznG5wNw3zzDeftCHBMhVD115/mcpClaude Desktop
Follow the steps below to connect in seconds.
- 1In Claude Desktop, open Settings → Connectors.
- 2Click “Add custom connector” and paste the connector link above as the remote MCP server URL.
- 3Click Add and start a new chat — Legal Counsel Prover capabilities are ready to use.
{
"mcpServers": {
"legal-counsel-prover-mcp": {
"url": "https://edge.vinkius.com/vk_preview_XD3ewFkU9Cn93FzWznG5wNw3zzDeftCHBMhVD115/mcp"
}
}
}
Claude
ChatGPT
Cursor
VS Code
Windsurf
Claude Code
JetBrains
Cline
Step-by-step instructions for each client are in the guide. How to connect
FAQ
Questions Legal Counsel Prover owners ask.
- 01
Does Legal Counsel Prover generate legal analysis or draft documents?
No. Legal Counsel Prover performs zero content generation. It forces the AI agent to structure its own legal reasoning into verifiable fields, then validates that the reasoning is logically consistent. The agent does all the thinking. the capability catches jurisdiction gaps, unverifiable citations, procedural omissions, one-sided risk assessments, and fact-disconnected analysis.
- 02
What does it catch that a system prompt instruction doesn't?
Prompt instructions are suggestions. agents routinely ignore 'always cite the specific statute' or 'consider the opposing argument.' Capability calls are obligations. the agent must fill every field. Beyond that, Legal Counsel Prover has 12 consistency rules that catch legal-specific anti-patterns: vague citations ('the law says', 'applicable provisions'), dismissive adverse analysis ('no counterargument', 'guaranteed outcome'), boilerplate risk assessments ('consult a lawyer', 'no risk'), and hypothetical fact analysis ('in general', 'typically'). A prompt can't enforce these. a capability schema can.
- 03
Does it replace a human attorney?
Absolutely not. Legal Counsel Prover is a quality gate for AI-assisted legal reasoning. It ensures the AI agent has done the minimum due diligence before presenting analysis to an attorney for review. The capability validates reasoning structure. jurisdiction, citations, procedure, adverse analysis, fact connection. but it cannot verify the accuracy of legal citations or the correctness of legal conclusions. A human attorney must always review the output.
- 04
Which legal systems and jurisdictions does it support?
Legal Counsel Prover is jurisdiction-agnostic. it validates reasoning structure, not legal content. It works with any legal system: common law, civil law, hybrid systems. The consistency rules check that the agent HAS identified a jurisdiction, cited verifiable law, and mapped procedural requirements. not whether those citations are correct. Whether you're analyzing Brazilian Civil Code, US federal statute, or French administrative law, the reasoning validation applies equally.
Explore
More in Productivity
First Principles Prover AI Connector
LLMs reason by analogy, copying industry norms. This engine is a 6-pivot cognitive trap that forces the agent
ViewArchimedes First Principles Prover AI Connector
An AI recommended restructuring 'because the industry leader does it that way.' That is analogy — not axiom. T
ViewClinical Reasoning Prover AI Connector
Forces AI to validate clinical treatment plans against US guidelines (AHA, ACC) using real differential exclus
ViewJournalistic Reasoning Prover AI Connector
A report cited three sources. None of them existed. That is not an error � that is fabrication. Journalistic R
View
Suggestions
Galileo Experimental Prover AI Connector
Your AI accepted a claim because 'the documentation recommends it.' That is authority deference — not evidence
ViewData Pipeline Prover AI Connector
A data team asked an AI to build an ETL pipeline. No schema contract. No idempotency. No freshness SLA. The pi
ViewFinancial Audit Prover AI Connector
Forces AI to ground every financial conclusion in ASC codification, trace numbers to source documents, reconci
ViewFeynman Radical Simplification Prover AI Connector
Stop your AI from hiding behind jargon — force it to explain simply, build from scratch, and justify every pie
View
