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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that signing URLs are returned for outstanding documents, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.
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, description adequately explains return values (signed/blocking contracts, signing URLs). Could mention scope is per caseId but implied.
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% with a description for caseId. Description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description clearly states specific verb 'Check' and resource 'contracts signed or still blocking a case', distinguishing it from siblings which deal with other case aspects.
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?
Implied usage for checking contract status, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools provided.
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 clearly distinct resource and action: case vs. tasks vs. files vs. messages vs. payments vs. account summary. The get_case_* family is broken out by specific sub-resource (activity, contract status, messages, payments, tasks), and preview_case is explicitly distinguished from create_case. list_tasks vs. get_case_tasks are scoped differently and the descriptions call out the difference.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern: create_, get_, list_, send_, upload_, preview_, ping. Even the standalone 'ping' is a common health-check convention and does not break the pattern. No camelCase or mixed verb styles appear.
At 16 tools, the server is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the breadth of the domain (case lifecycle, tasks, files, messages, payments, team management) justifies each tool. The count feels reasonable rather than bloated, earning a 4 rather than a 5.
The core workflow is well covered: preview, create, monitor (list/get, activity, payments, messages, contract status, files, tasks), communicate, and attach files. Missing operations like update_case, delete_case, or explicit task resolution are gaps, but they are often not needed in this domain since tasks auto-resolve and the partner drives legal processes. Overall, the surface is complete enough for typical agent workflows.