Skip to main content
Glama

Lawstronaut

by com.lawstronaut

list_subdomains

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a list of subdomains for a specific jurisdiction and optional filters. Use this tool when: - The user wants to find legal subdomains for a specific jurisdiction and optional filters - The user asks about available subdomains for a domain id - The user wants to filter subdomains by name with pagination

Parameters:
- domain_id (required): Filter by Domain ID.
- subdomain (optional): Filter subdomains by name
- limit: z.number().optional().describe("Number of results to return"),
- offset: z.number().optional().describe("Number of results to skip")

Returns:
- List of subdomains with subdomain_id, subdomain, domain_id, pagination: total_count, limit, offset
- Only returns subdomains that have data

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of results to return
offsetNoNumber of results to skip
domain_idYesFilter by Domain ID
subdomainNoFilter by subdomain name

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by stating 'Only returns subdomains that have data'. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and description aligns with these. No contradiction.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by use case bullets, parameter table, and return description. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema, description sufficiently explains return structure (fields, pagination) and behavioral filter. Context from parameters and annotations is well integrated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description repeats parameter names and optionality as in schema, adding no significant new meaning. No added constraints or examples.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'retrieves', resource 'list of subdomains', and scope 'for a specific jurisdiction and optional filters'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_domains or list_subcategories.

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?

Explicit bullet list of when to use: finding legal subdomains, asking about available subdomains for a domain id, filtering by name with pagination. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but guidance is clear and contextually complete.

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