AI contract review with MCP

Connect the assistant you already use to your contract workspace, and you can find uncapped liability, one-sided indemnities and weak exit rights across your agreements by asking for them. Each finding comes back with the clause behind it, so you can check the wording in the document before you do anything about it.

MCP, the Model Context Protocol, is the open protocol assistants use to reach tools and data outside the chat window. Contracko's contract management MCP server is that connection on the contract side. If you want the longer version first, read what a contract management MCP server is.

What a risk review looks like

An illustrative example, with fictional suppliers, reviewed from your side as the customer. This is not recorded product output.

Which supplier agreements have uncapped liability or one-sided indemnities?

Agreement	Liability cap	Indemnity	Flag
Halden Freight master agreement	None	One-way, in their favour	High
Vireo Cloud subscription	12 months of fees	One-way	Medium
Marbury Supplies framework	Annual contract value	Mutual	Clear

For the Halden flag, the assistant quotes what it found: "the Customer's liability under this Agreement shall not be limited in any respect". Then it offers a next step, such as putting the liability and indemnity clauses from all three agreements side by side.

Questions that surface contract risk

Four questions you can type in your own words, and what each one gets you.

Ask this	What comes back
Audit our vendor contracts for uncapped liability, one-sided indemnities and missing notice periods.	A pass across the portfolio with the sentence behind each finding.
What liability sits outside the cap in our hosting agreement?	The carve-outs and exceptions named, in the contract's own wording.
Which agreements can we exit early, and how much notice do we owe?	Termination rights per party, with the notice window for each.
What is unusual in this supplier agreement compared with our other vendor contracts?	The clauses that stand out, so you know what to question.

Compare two vendors, or two drafts

Review gets easier with something to compare against, and you get two kinds of comparison.

Across suppliers, ask for the terms lined up rather than summarised:

Compare payment, termination and service terms across our three logistics vendors.

You get the same terms side by side, each quoted from its own agreement, which is a negotiating position rather than an impression. Contracko frames this as comparing across suppliers or across versions of the same relationship, and with your approval the assistant writes the comparison back as a note on each contract.

The second kind saves an evening. A contract record holds its files marked current, previous version or draft, so a new draft sits beside the signed agreement:

The draft is attached to this record. What changed against the signed version, and which changes are worse for us?

Two honest limits. Contracko records the file history and the assistant reads both documents, but there is no redline engine here: what you get is the differences it found, quoted, so check anything you plan to argue about in the document itself. And extracted fields come from the primary document, so a draft's terms are not in the record's fields until that draft becomes the current version.

Why pasting into chat falls short

Pasting works for one contract. It stops working when the question spans eleven of them, because you have to find and upload each file first, and the assistant only knows what landed in the conversation. It cannot tell a signed amendment from a superseded draft unless you do that sorting yourself.

Through the connection, the assistant reaches the real records. It can find and open contracts, search inside the documents, and read Contracko's existing analysis of each one, which covers risks, obligations, gaps, liability and termination terms. It works inside the permissions you already have, and anything it creates or updates lands in activity history, labelled as coming from MCP. For the underlying list of terms to examine, use the contract review checklist.

Connect it and ask one question

Read access is enough for a review. Paste this address into your assistant's connector settings, sign in through your browser (OAuth), and choose your workspace.

https://app.contracko.com/mcp

Or let your assistant do the setup. Paste this into the chat instead:

Fetch and follow the setup instructions for Contracko MCP at https://contracko.com/mcp/install/prompt.md

Claude, ChatGPT, Grok and Grok Bot all take the address in their connector settings, and Cursor installs in one click. Coding agents read it from their own configuration instead, for example claude mcp add --transport http contracko https://app.contracko.com/mcp in Claude Code, with the rest in the setup documentation.

No account yet? Start a free trial with no credit card, either from the sign-in page the connection opens or from pricing. Every Contracko plan includes the MCP server at no extra cost.

Then ask one question: audit our vendor contracts for uncapped liability and one-sided indemnities.

You stay in control

You pick read or write when you connect. The assistant acts as you, inside the workspace you chose, and can never exceed your own permissions, so anything you cannot open in Contracko it cannot open either. Write actions pass your client's approval step, created and updated records land in activity history labelled as coming from MCP, and you can revoke the connection at any time.

Contracko does not train models on your contracts and holds multiple Zero Data Retention agreements with AI providers. Your AI client is a separate provider: turn off model training there before you connect real contracts.

Treat the output as a prepared decision rather than a conclusion. An assistant can miss material, so check the quoted clause in the document before acting on it, and keep "not found in what was reviewed" separate from "not in the agreement". None of this is legal advice, and nothing here tells you whether a clause is enforceable.

Frequently asked questions

Do I need to write any code?

No. You paste an address into your assistant's settings and sign in through your browser, the same way you would connect a calendar. The setup prompt above handles even that.

Which assistants work today?

Claude from Anthropic, through the desktop and web custom connector. ChatGPT from OpenAI, through its own connector settings, where Pro developer mode is read-only. Grok from xAI, by adding the address as a custom connector at grok.com/connectors. Grok Bot, xAI's computer-use agent, takes a custom MCP server the same way, subject to your team's MCP policy. Cursor, in one click. In the terminal: Claude Code, Codex and Codex CLI. The Gemini app does not support custom MCP servers. Microsoft 365 Copilot needs a read-only connector that a Microsoft 365 admin enables once it is listed in the Connectors Gallery, so you cannot set it up yourself today.

Is my contract data used to train AI models?

Not by Contracko, which holds multiple Zero Data Retention agreements with AI providers. The assistant you connect is a separate provider, so switch model training off there before you send real contract text.

Can this replace a lawyer?

No. It prepares the decision. You get the clause, the flag and a question worth asking, which makes the conversation with counsel shorter rather than unnecessary.

What if I want reminders or extracted data too?

The same connection covers both. Contract renewal reminders through MCP takes it from there.

Sources

Contracko. Contract management MCP server: the risk and liability audit, supported assistants, permissions and model training.

Contracko. MCP server documentation: per-client setup, the endpoint, browser sign-in, read and write access, and what to check before sharing real contracts.

Model Context Protocol. The open protocol that lets AI assistants reach external tools and data. modelcontextprotocol.io