The boundary

Every tool on this server reads. Nothing publishes a document, transmits one, or holds a credential: lcp_generate_legal_context returns a document for you to serve, and lcp_place_reference returns a document for your agent to send with its own keys.

The five that are absent

LCP v1.38 §C.9's illustrative table lists accept_terms, create_agreement, get_agreement, initiate_dispute and get_dispute_status. None of them is here, and none is coming.

Each asserts a role:

Integra is the record engine. The custodian of the record and the forum for the dispute are the deployment's and the counterparties' own. A server offering initiate_dispute would be asserting an operating role the mandate forbids.

There is a test asserting their absence, for a practical reason as much as a principled one: it is far easier not to add a seventh tool than to remove one after an agent has learned to call it.

No resources, no prompts

The server declares tools and nothing else.

§C.9 illustrates both a resource surface (lcp://agreement/{id}) and a prompt (dispute_evidence_assembly) — and every one of its examples is an agreement or dispute surface, which is the boundary above. When there is a resource to serve that is not one of those, it will be declared then.

Why the appendix does not bind here

This is the place LCP's Appendix C is an illustration and the host protocol binds.

The server was checked against the live MCP specification, revision 2026-07-28, rather than against the appendix. Two findings came out of that check and both are visible in the shipped surface:

• Annotations do not carry legal significance. There is no MCP annotation meaning that, and repurposing one would assert something no client can read. See annotations.
• lcp_verify_before_pay is narrower than a naive verifier. Re-grounding on the shipped discovery package drops a seller-signature block LCP does not define, and inherits the machine-readable-format rule — so a PDF listing is reported unverifiable rather than passed through.

The same reasoning governs the tool names. §C.9 shows a different vocabulary and says in the same breath that the standard canonizes no tool registry. An appendix example is not an interoperability fact; a name an agent host has already learned is, because a host that has learned a name breaks when it changes.