Search the public database of California law enforcement officers with documented misconduct or decertification. Includes name, agency, basis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| agency | No | Police department or agency name |
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 the search nature (public database) and the returned fields (name, agency, basis), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination, response format, or any edge-case behavior, leaving some gap.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the target database, the entity type, and the included fields.
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 key purpose and data scope, but it lacks explicit guidance on query parameter usage and any limitations. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, a bit more detail (e.g., how to construct a query) would improve completeness.
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?
Schema coverage is low (33%, only agency has a description). The description mentions name, agency, and basis as data fields but does not explain the 'query' parameter or how it interacts with the other fields. It fails to compensate for the undocumented query and limit parameters.
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 a specific public database (California law enforcement officers with documented misconduct or decertification) and identifies the key data fields (name, agency, basis). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_judges or search_capost.
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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when looking for California law enforcement officers with misconduct or decertification history. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the niche scope makes the use case obvious, and no exclusions are stated.
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.