get_case_contract_statusCheck which contracts (e.g. debt collection agreement, power of attorney) are signed or still blocking a case, including signing URLs for any outstanding documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caseId | Yes | Debitura case ID (GUID) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds value by revealing that the tool returns signing URLs for outstanding documents, which is behavioral context beyond what annotations specify. No contradictions.
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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. It gets straight to the point without unnecessary words, though it could be broken into bullet points for structure.
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?
Given no output schema, the description explains what is returned: contract signing status (signed/blocking) and URLs for outstanding documents. This is sufficient for a read-only status check tool. Missing details like error responses are not critical.
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 100%; the description of caseId in the schema already explains it is a required UUID. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond implying that the caseId identifies the case.
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 verb 'check' and the resource 'contracts' in the context of a case, specifying that it returns signing status and URLs for outstanding documents. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_case (case details) and get_case_activity (activity log).
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 implicitly tells when to use it: when you need to know contract signing status for a case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for the single purpose.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action—creation, preview, listing, detail, and case-specific sub-resources (activity, contracts, messages, payments, tasks, files). The potentially overlapping task tools (list_tasks vs get_case_tasks) are explicitly cross-referenced and scoped differently.
Consistent verb_noun pattern throughout: create_, get_, list_, send_, upload_, preview_. Case-specific reads use get_case_* suffix pattern, and ping is the only utility exception.
16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool earns its place in a comprehensive case-management API; no redundant tools.
Core lifecycle is covered (preview, create, list, get, sub-resources, messaging, file upload). Minor gaps include no case update/withdraw and no direct resolution for task types like SelectQuoteWinner, but these are mostly platform-controlled or handled via solutionUrl.