Search current California judges by name and/or court type (e.g., "superior", "appeal", "supreme"). Returns name + court type pairs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| court_type | No | "superior", "appeal", "supreme", etc. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns name/court type pairs and focuses on 'current' data, but it does not explain query matching behavior, limit behavior, or edge cases when no parameters are supplied. Some transparency is present, but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that states the purpose, criteria, and return value without any filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool, the description covers the core purpose and return format. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps such as default behavior with no arguments, limit handling, and the distinction between search_judges and related tools like top_judges. It is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers only court_type with a description (33% coverage). The description clarifies that 'query' refers to the judge's name and 'court_type' is the court type, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or the matching semantics for query/court_type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches 'current California judges by name and/or court type', specifying the verb, resource, and criteria. It also indicates the return format, distinguishing it from sibling search tools for other roles like search_das and search_defenders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it: when searching for California judges by name or court type. It doesn't provide explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from sibling tools focused on other entity types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_* retrieves specific records, search_* queries databases, top_* provides rankings, and list_* enumerates metadata. The overlap between search_cjp and search_cjp_documents is explicitly resolved in their descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscore separators: get_, search_, list_, top_. The pluralization of search_das vs get_da matches the function, and search_capost is a clear abbreviation.
15 tools is well within the ideal range for a public-records server covering four entity types. Each tool earns its place, covering retrieval, search, ranking, and metadata listing without unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers the full read-only workflow: discover databases, search records, retrieve full details, rank by severity, and navigate site pages. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of exposing California justice system records.