MCP and source verification

Citations checked against real databases instead of recalled from memory — what MCP is, and how two Italian databases power source verification.

The short version

The best-known problem with AI in legal work is that it invents its citations: rulings that don't exist, statutes with the wrong number, references that sound plausible but don't survive a check. It happens because the model, on its own, recalls from its training instead of consulting a source.

The fix has a technical name — MCP — and a simple practical effect: the AI stops working from memory and goes to check against real databases, while it's working. What you get is an AI that cites real, checkable sources, not invented ones.

What MCP is

MCP stands for Model Context Protocol. It's the standard that lets an AI query real external sources live, during the conversation — a legal database, for instance — instead of relying only on what it "learned" during training.

The difference is the whole point. Without MCP, when you ask an AI for the details of a ruling, it reconstructs from memory: which is exactly the mechanism that produces hallucinations. With an MCP connected to a legal database, the AI goes and reads the real source and reports back what's actually there. It's the single step that turns a "likely" citation into a verified one.

Two Italian databases today expose their legal data through MCP: BuddaLaw and Simpliciter.

BuddaLaw — Italian case law

BuddaLaw (spelled exactly that way, BuddaLaw) is a database of Italian case law: the Court of Cassation, courts of merit, tax jurisprudence — on the order of millions of decisions.

It provides an official MCP server that connects to Claude, ChatGPT and Perplexity, read-only on jurisprudence. In practice: when your AI needs to back an argument with a ruling, it can query BuddaLaw and retrieve decisions that genuinely exist, instead of offering you a plausible-looking one. It's the right tool when the point is case law.

Simpliciter — statutes and jurisprudence

Simpliciter covers a broader perimeter on the statutory side: Italian statutes and broad jurisprudence across practice areas — civil, criminal, administrative, tax, labor, banking. Its answers are grounded in the sources (a RAG, retrieval-augmented approach): the AI doesn't generate from nothing, it retrieves first and answers on the basis of what it retrieved.

On security and compliance, Simpliciter states certifications of ISO 27001, ISO 42001, SOC3, GDPR and PCI L1. It offers an official MCP server you activate from your account and connect to Claude, ChatGPT or Perplexity. It's the right tool when the point is statutes and broad jurisprudence by practice area.

How they power a source-verification skill like BeccarIA

Here the two databases stop being merely "consultable" and become the engine of an automatic check. A source-verification skill — like BeccarIA — uses real databases like these to do one precise thing: take every citation the AI produced and compare it against the real source.

Conceptually, the flow is this:

• The AI generates text with statutory and case-law references.
• Each citation gets checked against the real databases.
• Sources that exist are confirmed; rulings or articles that find no match are flagged as suspect.

The two databases are complementary — BuddaLaw is strong on case law, Simpliciter on statutes and broad jurisprudence by practice area — but neither is required. You can connect one, the other, both, or none: for each citation BeccarIA queries whichever MCPs you've enabled and, for anything it doesn't find there, it goes and fetches it from the web, from the official online sources. The MCPs make verification faster and more direct where they're connected; they aren't a prerequisite for using the skill — you can start with no connectors and add them when you need them. The result, for you, is that verification stops being a manual spot-check and becomes a systematic step: what's real stays, what's invented surfaces.

Source verification greatly reduces the risk of invented citations, but it doesn't eliminate it and doesn't replace your own review. Responsibility for what you sign and file remains the lawyer's: a citation "confirmed" by a database still has to be read on the merits.