Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DocketTrail

by com.dockettrail
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get a proceeding

get_proceeding
Read-onlyIdempotent

One transaction by the slug of its DocketTrail page (the transaction_slug of a search result): every state proceeding in it with the agency's wording and source link, the full trail of dated events (as the agency published or printed them), documents, and the changes DocketTrail observed. 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

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_proceeding"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesThe transaction slug, the last part of https://dockettrail.com/transactions/{slug}.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: results are public agency records with source_url and observed timestamps, coverage is limited to specified states and proceeding types, and absence from the data is not a claim that no review exists.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the description is a dense, run-on sentence with long parenthetical coverage lists and disclaimers. Much of the coverage detail could be relegated to documentation, though the provenance and caveat information does earn some of its space.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the result includes: proceedings, agency wording, source links, event trails, documents, observed changes, and timestamps. It also discloses coverage limitations and provenance, leaving only minor gaps such as response structure or pagination behavior.

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 the slug parameter is already fully documented as the last part of the transactions URL. The description adds only the useful detail that the slug is the transaction_slug from a search result, which is modest added meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb-and-resource pair: retrieving one transaction by slug, including proceedings, events, documents, and observed changes. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_proceedings tool by name.

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?

It implies usage by saying the slug comes from a search result and points to the DocketTrail slug format. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of search_proceedings or list_changes, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites beyond the slug origin.

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

All DocketTrail toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources