Skip to main content
Glama

Court Rules

by app.courtrules

Check document compliance

check_compliance
Read-only

Generate a curl command for the Court Rules compliance check API. This tool does NOT run the check itself; it formats your inputs into a ready-to-use curl command targeting api.courtrules.app/api/v1/check (requires an API key).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
is_pro_seNoWhether the filer is self-represented (pro se)
judge_slugYesThe judge's URL slug (e.g., "carol-bagley-amon")
page_countYesNumber of pages in the document
word_countYesNumber of words in the document
district_idYesThe district ID (e.g., "edny")
motion_typeNoThe motion type if applicable. Valid values: "Rule_12", "Rule_56", "Rule_50", "Rule_59", "Rule_60", "Daubert", "TRO", "preliminary_injunction", "reconsideration", "discovery", "motion_to_amend", "motion_in_limine", "general". Omit if not motion-related.
document_scopeYesThe document scope being filed. Valid values: "brief_support", "brief_reply", "brief_opposition", "reconsideration_support", "reconsideration_reply", "letter", "discovery_letter", "proposed_findings", "affidavit", "settlement_statement", "objection_response", "rule_56_1_statement"

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavior beyond that by stating the tool does NOT run the check and requires an API key. It also gives the exact endpoint, which is useful operational context an agent would not get from the schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core function, then clarifies the critical non-execution behavior and endpoint, earning every word.

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?

The description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool produces, the endpoint, and the API-key requirement. It does not detail the curl command format or how the API key is embedded, but given no output schema and a simple formatting task, the missing details are minor.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the structured schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the full weight.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a curl command' for the Court Rules compliance check API. It also clarifies the tool does not run the check itself, which differentiates it from what a tool named 'check_compliance' might otherwise be expected to do.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly states this tool formats inputs into a curl command rather than executing the check, which tells the agent when NOT to expect execution. It implies the use case of producing a command for external execution, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state conditions beyond that.

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

All Court Rules 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or operation: enforcement has search/get/stats, courts have list/holidays, judges have search/detail-rules, and filing rules have a dedicated search. The only potential overlap is search_filing_rules vs get_judge_rules, but their descriptions clearly separate source-document rules from judge-specific rules.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a predictable verb_noun pattern using check_, get_, list_, and search_. The resource nouns are consistently placed after the verb, making the tool surface easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools is well-scoped for a court-rules research server. Each tool covers a distinct facet of the domain without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the main read/search workflows: courts, judges, judge rules, filing rules, holidays, and enforcement actions with search/detail/stats. The main gap is that check_compliance only generates a curl command rather than executing the compliance check, which may leave an agent unable to complete that workflow unless it can run external commands.

Resources