Skip to main content
Glama

Lawstronaut

by com.lawstronaut

list_issuing_authorities

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a list of issuing authorities for a specific jurisdiction and optional filters. Use this tool when: - The user wants to find legal issuing authorities for a specific jurisdiction and optional filters - The user asks about available issuing authorities for a portal name, issuing authority - The user wants to filter with pagination

Parameters:
- iso (required): Filter by Jurisdiction ISO code (e.g. "US").
- limit (optional): Number of results to return.
- offset (optional): Number of results to skip.
- portal_name (optional): Filter by portal name.
- issuing_authority (optional): Filter by issuing authority.

Returns:
- List of issuing authorities with iso, issuing_authority, portal_name, pagination: total_count, limit, offset
- Only returns issuing authorities that have data

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
isoYesFilter by Jurisdiction ISO code (e.g. 'US')
limitNoNumber of results to return
offsetNoNumber of results to skip
portal_nameNoFilter by portal name
issuing_authorityNoFilter by issuing authority

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by noting that it only returns issuing authorities that have data, and it details the return fields. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature, and the description is consistent with these.

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?

The description is well-structured with bullet points for parameters and returns, making it scannable. It front-loads the purpose but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating parameter descriptions from schema). It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema, the description fully documents the return format (list with iso, issuing_authority, portal_name, pagination). It covers all necessary context: purpose, when to use, parameters, and output, making it complete for agent selection and invocation.

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%, with all parameters described in the input schema. The description repeats these descriptions in a bullet list but adds no new semantic information compared to the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it retrieves a list of issuing authorities for a specific jurisdiction with optional filters. It specifies the verb 'Retrieves' and the resource 'issuing authorities', and distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on a different entity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description includes a 'Use this tool when' section with three specific scenarios, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives among siblings or state when not to use it, missing the opportunity for complete guidance.

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

All Lawstronaut toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but evidence_pull and get_document_text both return full text, which could cause confusion. Other tools like list_documents and get_markdown are clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names follow a mix of 'list_', 'get_', and one-off names like 'evidence_pull' and 'horizon_scan'. The verb_noun pattern is present but inconsistent.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is reasonable for a legal document retrieval server, though some functionality overlaps (e.g., multiple ways to get document text). Still well-scoped for the domain.

Completeness4/5

Covers browse, filter, and retrieve operations comprehensively. Missing a general text search tool, but horizon_scan offers a recent-changes scan. Minor gap.

Resources