GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Legal Professional ServicesTop 10 Best Law Drafting Software of 2026
Ranked roundup of top law drafting software for contracts and legal docs, with side-by-side comparison and notes on Casetext and Practical Law.
How we ranked these tools
Core product claims cross-referenced against official documentation, changelogs, and independent technical reviews.
Analyzed video reviews and hundreds of written evaluations to capture real-world user experiences with each tool.
AI persona simulations modeled how different user types would experience each tool across common use cases and workflows.
Final rankings reviewed and approved by our editorial team with authority to override AI-generated scores based on domain expertise.
Score: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%
Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page — this does not influence rankings. Editorial policy
Casetext is the best pick if your citation-heavy drafting needs Word-integrated automation tied to authoritative legal research, whereas Trellis.law fits contract teams that want repeatable clause-driven drafting with clear revision states rather than just document help.
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
Casetext
Citation checking that validates inserted authorities and flags broken references during document assembly.
Built for fits when citation-heavy drafting teams want Word-integrated automation tied to authority research..
Practical Law Contract Builder
Editor pickClause and option selection tied to Practical Law drafting content, producing repeatable contract builds that support consistent negotiation-ready structure.
Built for fits when legal teams standardize recurring contract types and need controlled clause assembly in Word..
Litera Contract Companion
Editor pickClause reuse with assembly guidance inside the Word editing workflow for controlled, consistent contract structure.
Built for fits when legal teams draft contract volume in Word and need governed clause reuse with auditable revisions..
Related reading
- Legal Professional ServicesTop 10 Best Patent Drafting Software of 2026
- Legal Professional ServicesTop 10 Best Law Office Client Management Software of 2026
- Legal Professional ServicesTop 10 Best Small Law Firm Practice Management Software of 2026
- Digital Products And SoftwareTop 10 Best Document Drafting Software of 2026
Comparison Table
Casetext
enterpriseAI legal research and drafting assistant.
Citation checking that validates inserted authorities and flags broken references during document assembly.
Casetext is built around authority-aware drafting workflows that connect research results to the clauses and sections that get inserted into a document. Drafting output is delivered through Microsoft Word integration, which supports clause-level edits without forcing teams to relearn an alternate editor. Document comparison and redlining support make it possible to review changes across versions during a matter-driven workflow.
A tradeoff is that Casetext drafting stays tightly coupled to its citation-driven research context, so teams with clause libraries that are maintained outside the system may need extra mapping work to get full reuse. It fits best when a legal team drafts repeatedly with consistent citation formats and wants fewer last-mile fixes for citations and internal references.
- +Authority-linked drafting that turns research citations into inserted clause text
- +Microsoft Word add-in flow keeps markup and revisions inside familiar tooling
- +Document comparison and redlining support make version review practical
- +Cross-reference validation reduces broken internal links during assembly
- –Template assembly depends on aligning research context with clause placement
- –Automation depth for fully custom clause logic requires disciplined standardization
- –External clause libraries need mapping effort to reach consistent reuse
- –Citation checking adds a review step that can slow rapid iteration
Corporate legal teams
Drafting MSAs with citation consistency
Faster review with fewer citation fixes
Law firm associates
Redlining amendments to prior versions
Cleaner client-ready edits
Show 2 more scenarios
Contract operations teams
Standard form assembly for multiple matters
More uniform execution copies
Template assembly supports consistent structure and metadata across matter-specific drafts.
In-house litigation teams
Drafting motion sections with authority
Less manual citation reconciliation
Draft insertion uses research results to keep citations aligned with each section.
Best for: Fits when citation-heavy drafting teams want Word-integrated automation tied to authority research.
More related reading
Practical Law Contract Builder
enterpriseThomson Reuters drafting tool combining model documents with clause integration.
Clause and option selection tied to Practical Law drafting content, producing repeatable contract builds that support consistent negotiation-ready structure.
Practical Law Contract Builder supports contract drafting by guiding clause choices and assembling a finished agreement in a format suitable for downstream redlining in Microsoft Word. Clause content is organized for reuse so teams can build execution copies faster than manual copy paste, while still keeping drafting decisions explicit in the build steps. It fits organizations that already operate with Practical Law research and want drafting control tied to that library’s clause options. The tooling also emphasizes consistent structure so numbering, headings, and defined terms land in predictable places during assembly.
A tradeoff is that automation stays constrained to the contract assembly model, so teams with highly bespoke clause structures still need manual cleanup and integration work. It is a good fit when a legal group needs to standardize a recurring agreement type across business units and later route those builds into an existing redlining and approval process. It is also useful when document comparison and negotiation cycles make repeatable assembly more valuable than ad hoc drafts.
- +Clause guidance supports repeatable drafting decisions across agreement variations
- +Build-driven assembly produces Word-ready documents with consistent structure
- +Matter-ready content reduces manual clause search during negotiation cycles
- +Build steps help document iteration tracking during contract revisions
- –Highly bespoke clause frameworks still require manual integration work
- –Extensive customization can be harder than editing a blank Word template
- –Automation benefits depend on consistent clause selection discipline
In-house contract attorneys
Standardize master services agreement builds
Faster first drafts
Legal operations teams
Enforce drafting consistency across teams
More uniform contract language
Show 2 more scenarios
Procurement legal liaisons
Reduce negotiation churn on variants
Lower revision overhead
Reuse clause options to manage common variants and keep the document structure stable across cycles.
Law firm contract managers
Assemble client-ready execution copies
More predictable delivery timelines
Generate consistent agreement drafts from shared clause building blocks for quicker client turnaround.
Best for: Fits when legal teams standardize recurring contract types and need controlled clause assembly in Word.
Litera Contract Companion
enterpriseContract drafting and review software for legal professionals.
Clause reuse with assembly guidance inside the Word editing workflow for controlled, consistent contract structure.
Litera Contract Companion is built for Word-centric drafting with contract assembly guidance, clause-level reuse, and tools that reduce manual copy and formatting mistakes during template-driven work. Document comparison and redline review workflows are integrated into the drafting cycle so legal can resolve deltas before producing clean execution versions. Metadata handling supports downstream document management needs such as version identification and consistent numbering outputs across revisions.
A key tradeoff is that the deepest workflow automation depends on how clause libraries, templates, and permissions are configured, which requires upfront governance decisions. Litera fits teams that need high-volume contract drafting with repeatable clause behavior and audit visibility, especially when multiple reviewers must produce consistent output for execution copies.
- +Word add-in workflow reduces context switching during drafting
- +Clause reuse and assembly guidance keeps document structure consistent
- +Integrated comparison and redlining shortens review cycles
- +Audit trail supports governance across drafting and revisions
- –Advanced governance requires disciplined template and permission setup
- –Non-Word drafting workflows may require extra tooling
- –Complex clause logic increases maintenance overhead for library owners
Enterprise legal operations
Standardize clause-driven drafting across teams
Fewer formatting and clause deviations
Commercial contract attorneys
Review opposing edits with redlines
Faster issue resolution
Show 2 more scenarios
Contracts admin and workflow owners
Produce consistent execution copies
Cleaner version management
Metadata-aware outputs and revision tracking support consistent execution versions for stored records.
Midsize legal teams
Reduce manual template assembly work
Less administrative drafting effort
Template-driven authoring guidance reduces repetitive copy edits when assembling common sections.
Best for: Fits when legal teams draft contract volume in Word and need governed clause reuse with auditable revisions.
Trellis.law
vertical specialistLitigation analytics platform, not pure drafting.
Clause assembly workflows tied to structured drafting variables that carry through document output versions.
Trellis.law focuses on contract and legal document drafting with structured inputs that generate execution-ready text. It centers on clause assembly workflows backed by reusable components and consistent formatting across versions.
The system also supports review cycles with change visibility and document state tracking that help teams manage revisions over time. Trellis.law fits organizations that want drafting automation tied closely to clause selection rather than general document storage.
- +Clause-first drafting reduces manual editing during template assembly
- +Versioned document outputs preserve prior states for revision comparison
- +Consistent clause formatting helps standardize execution copies
- +Drafting workflows map to review cycles for smoother handoffs
- –Limited depth for complex clause-level permission models
- –Automation configuration takes more setup than simple templates
- –Fewer enterprise governance controls than top-tier drafting systems
- –Word processing integration is less direct than add-in-first tools
Best for: Fits when contract teams need repeatable clause-driven drafting with clear revision states, not heavy workflow orchestration.
Loio
vertical specialistAI-powered contract drafting and review add-on for Microsoft Word.
Clause-to-document assembly that keeps clause boundaries intact through the build process for consistent drafting variants.
Loio converts clause selections into a structured draft build, which reduces manual cut and paste when the same agreement patterns recur.
The system supports template-based assembly and consistent clause formatting for different document variants.
Loio produces drafting outputs suitable for review cycles and tracks changes across versions for auditability of drafting iterations.
- +Clause library assembly reduces manual drafting across repeat matters
- +Document versioning supports controlled redo of clause selections
- +Consistent formatting improves execution copy readability
- +Review-friendly output supports faster internal markup cycles
- –Limited visibility into clause provenance compared with matter systems
- –External integration surface for DMS and practice tools is narrow
- –Advanced validation like citation checking is not a primary focus
- –Complex clause workflows require setup of library structure
Best for: Fits when legal teams need clause-based template assembly with repeatable structure.
LegalSifter
enterpriseAI-assisted contract drafting and review.
Clause-level controls tied to template assembly workflows aimed at enforcing which provisions can appear in generated drafts.
LegalSifter targets legal drafting work with structured templates and clause assembly instead of freeform document creation. It focuses on reusable building blocks for repeatable contract and legal document drafting, with controls intended to reduce manual errors during template assembly.
Draft outputs can be generated for sharing and review workflows, including versions that support redlining and comment cycles. LegalSifter is positioned for teams that need consistent formatting, repeatable clauses, and predictable document metadata across drafting iterations.
- +Clause and template reuse reduces repeated drafting effort
- +Draft generation supports repeatable structure across similar matters
- +Versioned outputs support review cycles and revision tracking
- +Configured drafting workflows reduce formatting drift
- –Advanced automation depends on disciplined template structure
- –Limited visibility into cross-document citation checks without extra workflow design
- –Deep DMS integration is not evident in typical drafting-only deployments
- –Bulk clause governance can feel manual for large clause libraries
Best for: Fits when firms need consistent clause assembly and formatted drafting outputs across repeat document types.
Harvey
enterpriseGenerative AI platform built for law firms.
Context-grounded clause drafting that rewrites selected sections while tracking the user’s supplied materials.
Harvey is a law drafting assistant that focuses on clause-level drafting with AI-assisted analysis rather than building documents from scratch in a pure template editor. It supports contract work such as drafting and revising clause text, generating execution-ready language, and responding to document context during iteration.
Harvey also supports structured document workflows by keeping drafting grounded in the user’s source material and producing revisions that can be carried into word-processing outputs. Strong document governance depends on how the workspace is configured and how review history is retained across revisions.
- +Clause-focused drafting that rewrites selected language in context
- +Iterative redrafting tied to uploaded or referenced source text
- +Human-readable outputs designed for transfer into word-processing workflows
- +Collaboration-friendly review cycles through shareable draft outputs
- –Clause-level control can lag when complex dependencies span documents
- –Reference accuracy can degrade when long contracts exceed context limits
- –Governance features like audit trail depth are uneven across workflows
- –Advanced automation requires careful prompt and instruction management
Best for: Fits when legal teams need rapid clause revision cycles using existing contracts.
Definely
vertical specialistDrafting and review tool for legal documents in Word.
Clause and template assembly built around structured document metadata for consistent, matter-level document generation.
Definely targets legal drafting workflows that depend on reusable content blocks and controlled document assembly. The core value centers on clause and template assembly with structured document metadata that helps keep draft output consistent across matters.
It also supports collaboration workflows around review and iteration, with versioned outputs intended for repeatable execution copies. For teams that integrate drafts with existing word processing and document management steps, Definely focuses on predictable template-driven generation rather than manual editing.
- +Clause library reuse reduces repeated drafting across matters
- +Template-driven assembly keeps numbering and sections more consistent
- +Document metadata supports traceability during drafting cycles
- +Review iterations map cleanly to versioned document outputs
- –Cross-document reference validation coverage is limited for complex citations
- –Advanced clause-level permissions require careful design of templates
- –Word-processing integration can add steps versus editor-native drafting
- –Document comparison and redlining depth is uneven across output types
Best for: Fits when legal teams need repeatable template assembly with consistent structure across many drafting cycles.
Woodpecker
SMBLegal document automation and drafting tool.
Clause-level assembly paired with an approval workflow that separates draft iterations from execution copies.
Woodpecker generates contract and legal documents from templates, then manages them through an approval workflow from draft to execution copy. It focuses on clause-level assembly using a reusable clause library and template parameters, which reduces manual copy-paste and numbering drift.
The system supports versioning of documents and preserves prior iterations for auditability during matter work. Compared with desktop-only document processors, Woodpecker adds controlled lifecycle steps around document creation rather than treating drafting as a single Word session.
- +Clause library reuse reduces recurring clause editing across templates
- +Approval workflow keeps drafts and execution-ready copies in one lifecycle
- +Document versioning maintains traceable iterations during matter work
- +Template parameters standardize names, dates, and controlled fields
- –Template assembly still relies heavily on administrators defining clause structure
- –Complex cross-reference validation coverage can lag specialized drafting systems
- –Word-centric teams may face an adoption gap for clause-driven workflows
- –Fine-grained clause-level permissions require careful governance design
Best for: Fits when legal teams need controlled template assembly with reusable clauses and workflow steps, not only Word macros.
BriefCatch
vertical specialistAI-powered legal writing and editing assistant.
BriefCatch ties draft assembly steps to revision history so collaborators can trace clause-level changes across iterations.
BriefCatch is a law drafting tool focused on turning matter context into reviewable draft documents. It supports clause and template assembly workflows and tracks changes across document revisions for collaboration.
Document output is designed to flow into familiar word-processing and PDF-ready formats for execution packages. BriefCatch also supports structured reuse of drafting elements to reduce rework during repeated filings.
- +Clause and template assembly workflow keeps drafting steps consistent
- +Revision history helps teams audit what changed between draft iterations
- +Document output supports review-ready formatting for execution packages
- +Reuse of drafting elements reduces repeated manual edits across versions
- –Collaboration controls feel thin compared with enterprise contract systems
- –Automation coverage is narrower for clause-level workflows than expected
- –Word-processing integration depth appears limited for advanced markup
- –Cross-document metadata management lacks depth for complex matters
Best for: Fits when mid-size practices need structured drafting reuse and revision tracking for repeatable documents.
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 legal professional services, Casetext stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.
Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.
How to Choose the Right law drafting software
This buyer's guide covers law drafting software built for clause assembly, template-driven document generation, and review-ready outputs. It explains what each tool category covers using Casetext, Practical Law Contract Builder, Litera Contract Companion, Trellis.law, Loio, LegalSifter, Harvey, Definely, Woodpecker, and BriefCatch.
The guide maps concrete capabilities to real drafting workflows such as citation-linked insertion, Word add-in authoring, redlining and comparison, and versioned execution package output. It also calls out where common setups break down, like clause library mapping and governance-heavy templates.
Law drafting software that turns clause decisions into structured, review-ready documents
Law drafting software helps legal teams generate documents by assembling clauses, options, and structured content into Word-ready or exportable execution packages. These systems reduce copy-paste drafting, enforce consistent document structure, and carry decisions through revision comparisons.
Casetext illustrates citation-driven drafting by validating inserted authorities during document assembly and producing Word output tied to research citations. Practical Law Contract Builder shows how matter-ready building blocks and controlled clause selection drive repeatable contract builds in a Word workflow.
Controls for clause assembly, validation, and governed revision flow
Law drafting tools differ most in how they assemble content, how they validate what gets inserted, and how they preserve drafting decisions across iterations. Teams should evaluate what the system can enforce during assembly versus what still requires manual discipline.
Casetext and LegalSifter emphasize enforcement at the clause or authority level. Litera Contract Companion and Woodpecker emphasize review and lifecycle control inside and around Word editing workflows.
Authority-linked citation checking during assembly
Casetext validates inserted authorities and flags broken references while building the document. This reduces manual proofreading passes that often catch missing or mismatched citations after clause insertion.
Guided clause and option selection for repeatable contract builds
Practical Law Contract Builder ties clause and option selection to Practical Law drafting content so builds stay negotiation-ready and consistent across agreement variations. This keeps fallback language and definition placement controlled instead of discovered late in review.
Word add-in authoring with in-workflow redlining and comparison
Litera Contract Companion runs inside Microsoft Word authoring through an add-in flow that keeps revisions and markup near the drafting context. It also provides integrated document comparison and redlining to shorten review cycles on iteration-to-iteration changes.
Clause-first assembly workflows that carry structured variables into versions
Trellis.law uses clause assembly workflows backed by structured drafting variables that persist through versioned outputs. This makes it easier to understand how clause choices translate into later revision states during handoffs.
Clause-to-document builds that preserve clause boundaries through the build
Loio keeps clause boundaries intact through the build process so assembled variants do not lose the structure needed for repeatable reuse. This matters when internal reviewers expect clause-level clarity in execution copies and markup.
Structured document metadata for traceable matter-level generation
Definely centers clause and template assembly around structured document metadata that supports traceability across drafting cycles. LegalSifter also emphasizes clause-level controls tied to template assembly workflows to enforce which provisions can appear in generated drafts.
Pick the drafting tool that matches the assembly workflow and validation depth
The first decision is where the drafting truth lives: in citation-linked research, in clause libraries, or in AI rewriting grounded in user-provided sources. The second decision is how governed the process must be, from template permissions and audit trails to approval steps that separate drafts from execution copies.
Casetext and Harvey optimize different drafting loops. Casetext keeps drafting anchored to authority-linked insertion with citation checking, while Harvey focuses on context-grounded clause rewriting using user-supplied materials.
Start from the drafting trigger: citations, clause reuse, or clause rewriting
If drafting depends on authority selection and internal cross-references, Casetext fits because it validates inserted authorities and flags broken references during assembly. If drafting depends on rewriting selected contract sections from existing materials, Harvey fits because it rewrites clause text in context and tracks revisions back to the supplied materials.
Choose the document build model: guided template assembly versus flexible clause editing
If repeatable contract builds must follow structured clause and option selection, Practical Law Contract Builder fits because build-driven steps guide clause insertion into Word-ready documents. If the team needs clause-level assembly guidance inside the Word editing workflow, Litera Contract Companion fits because clause reuse and assembly guidance run in the Word add-in flow.
Set governance expectations before importing any clause library
If governance must include audit trails and configurable control points, Litera Contract Companion aligns because it supports audit trail governance across drafting and revisions. If governance relies on approval workflow separation between drafts and execution copies, Woodpecker aligns because it manages a lifecycle with approval steps and keeps versioned iterations for matter work.
Validate what the tool checks automatically before relying on it for execution readiness
If citation accuracy is a blocker, select Casetext because its citation checking validates inserted authorities and catches broken references during document assembly. If cross-document citation validation is a requirement, confirm whether the chosen tool makes it a primary focus because tools like Loio and Definely place stronger emphasis on assembly and metadata than citation checking depth.
Align the tool to integration and workflow shape around Word and document systems
If Word-centric drafting with in-editor comparisons is the main workflow, choose Litera Contract Companion for add-in-first authoring and redlining. If clause assembly must drive revision states and review cycles with structured drafting variables, choose Trellis.law because its clause assembly workflows carry variables into versioned document outputs.
Which law drafting software fits which drafting teams
Law drafting software fits teams that need repeatable document outputs, controlled clause decisions, and review-friendly iteration tracking. The best match depends on whether the team prioritizes authority accuracy, Word-native authoring, or lifecycle governance around drafts and execution copies.
Casetext, Practical Law Contract Builder, and Litera Contract Companion cover the strongest ends of citation-linked drafting, model-document builds, and Word add-in governed reuse. Others cover clause assembly and metadata-driven generation for teams with more template discipline.
Citation-heavy contract and litigation drafting teams in Word
Casetext fits because it links inserted authorities to citation checking and flags broken references during document assembly. This reduces the manual pass needed before generating execution copies when citations and internal cross-references are frequent.
Legal teams standardizing recurring contract types and negotiation structure
Practical Law Contract Builder fits because clause and option selection are tied to Practical Law drafting content. The build-driven workflow produces Word-ready documents with repeatable structure across agreement variations.
Contract-volume drafters who need governed clause reuse and audit trails inside Word
Litera Contract Companion fits because it provides a Word add-in authoring workflow with integrated comparison and redlining. It also includes audit trail governance features that support standardized drafting at scale.
Contract teams focused on clause-driven drafting variables and revision states
Trellis.law fits because it ties clause assembly workflows to structured drafting variables that carry through document output versions. It supports revision comparison through versioned outputs without requiring heavy workflow orchestration.
Mid-size practices standardizing reuse and revision history for repeatable filings
BriefCatch fits because it ties draft assembly steps to revision history and outputs documents for review and execution packaging. It is designed for structured drafting reuse and collaboration tracking when enterprise contract systems feel too heavyweight.
Pitfalls that break clause libraries, validation, and governance workflows
Many drafting failures come from mismatched expectations about what the tool enforces versus what the team must standardize. Other failures come from relying on shallow validation where citation checking or cross-reference validation is not a primary strength.
The most common problems show up when clause libraries do not match template placement rules or when governance features require admin setup discipline.
Building a clause library without mapping research context to clause placement
Casetext can reduce broken references through citation checking, but template assembly still depends on aligning research context with where clauses go. Start with repeatable clause placement patterns in the Word workflow before expanding automation, or the system can slow iteration during setup.
Expecting fully custom clause frameworks to assemble cleanly without manual integration
Practical Law Contract Builder delivers controlled builds through clause and option selection tied to Practical Law content. Highly bespoke clause frameworks still require manual integration work, so forcing every contract variation into the same model can defeat repeatability.
Underestimating governance setup needs for advanced permissions and auditability
Litera Contract Companion supports advanced governance, but it requires disciplined template and permission setup to work smoothly at scale. Teams that skip governance design often end up with inconsistent reuse rules and audit trails that do not reflect the intended controls.
Assuming advanced cross-document citation validation is handled automatically
Casetext emphasizes citation checking, while tools like Definely focus more on clause and template assembly with structured document metadata than deep citation validation. Where citations and cross-references are complex, validate the workflow explicitly instead of assuming broad coverage from general document metadata.
Choosing AI clause rewriting without accounting for context limits on long contracts
Harvey rewrites selected sections grounded in user-supplied materials, but reference accuracy can degrade when contracts exceed context limits. Large, multi-document dependencies need a workflow that breaks work into smaller drafting scopes or supports tighter input selection.
How We Selected and Ranked These Tools
We evaluated and scored Casetext, Practical Law Contract Builder, Litera Contract Companion, Trellis.law, Loio, LegalSifter, Harvey, Definely, Woodpecker, and BriefCatch on feature depth, ease of use, and value. Features carried the most weight at forty percent while ease of use and value each accounted for thirty percent in the overall rating. Each score reflects criteria-based evidence from named capabilities like Word add-in drafting, citation checking during assembly, clause reuse with assembly guidance, and revision or approval workflows.
Casetext separated itself from lower-ranked tools through citation checking that validates inserted authorities and flags broken references during document assembly. That capability increased practical effectiveness during drafting and directly lifted the feature factor more than tools centered on clause reuse alone.
Frequently Asked Questions About law drafting software
How does Casetext feed authority-backed content into drafting compared with other tools in this list?
Which tool is better for assembling contracts from clause blocks with step-by-step option selection?
How does Litera Contract Companion handle document comparison and redlining during drafting?
When does a clause-to-document workflow help more than general-purpose document editing?
What breaks if clause-level controls are not used during automated assembly?
Which system fits teams that need Word-integrated drafting grounded in source contracts and revision history?
How do admin controls and audit trails show up in governed drafting workflows?
How does data migration typically affect clause libraries and template parameters across tools?
What integration and API capabilities matter most for Microsoft Word and document management handoffs?
When should a team pick a clause-driven generator over an approval workflow that separates draft and execution copies?
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
Keep exploring
Comparing two specific tools?
Software Alternatives
See head-to-head software comparisons with feature breakdowns, pricing, and our recommendation for each use case.
Explore software alternatives→In this category
Legal Professional Services alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of legal professional services tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare legal professional services tools→