Skip to main content
Glama

Find an organization

find_organization
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find an organization by name (its canonical name or any name it files under, as the agency printed it), or open one by slug to see its transactions, the names it files under in each state and how each was matched. Organizations are linked across states only from a reviewed list, never by a name that looks alike. Covers healthcare transaction reviews (OR, CA, MA, NM, WA, MN), certificate-of-need projects (WA, IA, IL, FL, NC, HI, MO, GA, SC, VA, KY, DE, DC) and nonprofit health facility notices (CA, GA) only (see https://dockettrail.com/coverage for what is tracked and what was checked and not tracked). Every result is a public agency record, in the agency's own words, with source_url (the agency page it was read from) and the day DocketTrail observed it (observed_day, first_seen_at, last_checked_at; UTC). Nothing here is legal advice, and absence from the data is not a claim that no review exists.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "find_organization"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoPart of an organization name; at least two letters or digits.
pageNoPage number, from 1.
slugNoAn organization slug, to open that organization.
stateNoTwo-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, IL, FL, NC, HI, MO, GA, SC, VA, KY, DE, NM, DC, MN.
per_pageNoRecords per page. Default 25; 25 is the most without a founding key, 200 with one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, IL, FL, NC, HI, MO, GA, SC, VA, KY, DE, NM, DC."New value: +"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, IL, FL, NC, HI, MO, GA, SC, VA, KY, DE, NM, DC, MN."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, IL, FL, NC, HI, MO, GA, SC, VA, KY, DE, NM."New value: +"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, IL, FL, NC, HI, MO, GA, SC, VA, KY, DE, NM, DC."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, IL, FL, NC, HI, MO, GA, SC, VA, KY, DE."New value: +"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, IL, FL, NC, HI, MO, GA, SC, VA, KY, DE, NM."
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, IL, FL, NC, HI, MO, GA, SC, VA, KY."New value: +"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, IL, FL, NC, HI, MO, GA, SC, VA, KY, DE."
  5. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, IL, FL, NC, HI, MO, GA, SC, VA."New value: +"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, IL, FL, NC, HI, MO, GA, SC, VA, KY."
  6. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, IL, FL, NC, HI, MO, GA, SC."New value: +"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, IL, FL, NC, HI, MO, GA, SC, VA."
  7. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, IL, FL."New value: +"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, IL, FL, NC, HI, MO, GA, SC."
  8. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, FL."New value: +"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, IL, FL."
  9. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA."New value: +"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA, FL."
  10. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"Two-letter state code: OR, CA or MA."New value: +"Two-letter state code: OR, CA, MA, WA, IA."
  11. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds real value beyond them: organization linkage comes only from a reviewed list, never fuzzy name matching, plus provenance fields (source_url, observed_day, first_seen_at, last_checked_at) and a note that absence is not evidence. It omits pagination behavior and result shape, but coverage is decent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the core action, then layers coverage and provenance context. It is dense but each sentence carries information; the coverage URL and legal disclaimer are somewhat verbose but purposeful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and five optional parameters, the description covers provenance, jurisdictions, and matching behavior well. However, it omits behavior when name, slug, and state are combined or conflicting, pagination semantics, and whether results are a list or a detailed record.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning about name matching (canonical name or any filed name as the agency printed it) and what slug opens, which goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: find an organization by name or open one by slug. Adds what opening by slug reveals (transactions, filing names per state, match explanations). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings search_proceedings or get_proceeding beyond the resource noun.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies two usage modes (name search vs. slug open) and lists covered jurisdictions, which is useful context. But it never states explicitly when to prefer this over search_proceedings or get_proceeding, nor that a slug is the path to detail records.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources