caselaw

caselaw_get_case

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch one judgment by id.

section='summary' (default) returns metadata + the AI headnote (plain-language summary, the
laws/provisions referred, and keyword tags) — read this first to judge relevance cheaply.
section='full' additionally returns the judgment body text (capped at ~40,000 chars; the
response flags body_truncated/body_chars_total when longer).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the body text cap at ~40,000 characters and the truncation flags, adding meaningful behavioral context. It also clarifies the different outputs for summary vs full sections.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the main action, and organized into two clear paragraphs for summary and full modes. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be exhaustively described. The description covers the key decision (summary vs full), the truncation behavior, and the default, making it sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds substantial meaning for the 'section' parameter, explaining exactly what each value returns and the cost implication. It complements the schema's enum descriptions, though 'response_format' is not addressed, leaving that to the schema.

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 opens with 'Fetch one judgment by id', which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on single-case retrieval, while sibling tools handle citations, search, or lookup.

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 explicitly recommends reading the summary section first to 'judge relevance cheaply', providing clear guidance on how to use the tool efficiently. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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

All caselaw tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: fetching a case by ID, searching full-text, resolving a citation, traversing the citation graph forward or backward, and listing landmark cases. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the caselaw_ prefix and mostly follow a verb-first pattern (get_case, get_citations, get_cited_by, lookup_citation, search). The exception is caselaw_most_cited, which uses an adjective phrase rather than a verb, causing a minor inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a legal research server. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The read-only domain of case law research is well covered: search, retrieval, citation lookup, and both directions of citation traversal are present. The landmark listing provides an entry point, and there are no obvious dead ends in the research flow.

Resources

Need Help?