Skip to main content
Glama

ca-rate-filings

by ai.serff

Get Filing References

get_filing_references
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the predecessor, superseded, and companion filings that this filing itself cites in its supporting documentation. Carrier-claimed lineage extracted from inside the PDF (e.g. "supersedes XXXX-NNNN", "loss costs adopted from NCCI-NNNN").

Distinct from get_filing_lineage, which returns the reconciled chain across the corpus. The two often agree but can diverge — get_filing_references is the carrier's stated lineage; get_filing_lineage is what was actually wired together across filings. When they disagree, that is itself a signal worth surfacing.

Each entry typically carries a SERFF id, NAIC, group code, filing type, and a relationship label (predecessor / superseded / loss-cost-source). Use to answer "what does this filing claim to replace?" or "which bureau filing did this carrier adopt?".

Returns { error: ... } if no references record exists for the SERFF id (the filing has not yet been classified).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serffYesCanonical SERFF id, shape PREFIX-IDENTIFIER (e.g. "AAIC-134567890"). Validated against /^[A-Z]{3,5}-[A-Z0-9]{7,15}$/; invalid values return an error envelope.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that data is extracted from inside the PDF (carrier-claimed), that entries include specific fields, and that an error is returned if no record exists. This goes beyond the annotations, though not exhaustively.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (what it does, distinction, use cases, error handling). Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return format (list entries with specific fields and an error case). Given the tool's moderate complexity and rich input schema, this is adequately complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions the parameter shape (PREFIX-IDENTIFIER) and regex validation, which is already in the schema. No additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the exact resource returned (predecessor/superseded/companion filings cited by this filing) and distinguishes from the sibling tool get_filing_lineage, using concrete examples like 'supersedes XXXX-NNNN'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly compares to get_filing_lineage, explaining when each is appropriate ('carrier's stated lineage' vs 'reconciled chain'). Provides specific use cases: 'what does this filing claim to replace?' and 'which bureau filing did this carrier adopt?'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ca-rate-filings toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The get_filing_* family has distinct purposes, though get_filing_lineage and get_filing_references could be confused without the detailed descriptions. The search_* tools are clearly separated by embedding surface, and dossier/composite vs single-filing retrievals are explicitly differentiated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with clear prefixes: get_filing_*, search_*, list_*, and mcp_*. No style mixing or vague generic verbs.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools, this sits at the upper edge of the ideal range. Each tool earns its place, though get_filing_dossier could have been a client-side composition of the other get_filing_* calls rather than a separate tool.

Completeness5/5

The domain (retrieving CA rate filings) is covered end to end: structured and semantic search across multiple granularities, filing summaries, correspondence threads, actuarial numerics, lineage, source file listing/download, and reviewer caseload. The read-only nature of the domain means no create/update operations are needed, and every retrieval path leads to a terminal artifact.

Resources