Skip to main content
Glama

Probative legal-marketing data

Bar ad filing requirements and fees for one state

get_ad_filing_requirements
Read-onlyIdempotent

Whether a state's bar requires lawyers to file or submit ads for review, which ads, when. Results are not legal advice.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateYesTwo-letter code (TX) or DC; full names (Texas) also work
response_formatNoconcise

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / detail
      Removed value: -{
      -  "default": "summary",
      -  "enum": [
      -    "summary",
      -    "full"
      -  ],
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • addedInput schema / properties / response_format
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": "concise",
      +  "enum": [
      +    "concise",
      +    "detailed"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / detail / description
      Removed value: -"summary (default): each record as its id, a 1-2 sentence text, status, date checked, one source URL and the page to cite. full: every field, every source and the per-record provenance."
    • removedOutput schema / properties
      Removed value: -{
      -  "meta": {
      -    "description": "Credit line (attribution), citation, DOI, version, license (CC BY 4.0), disclaimer, notice and the page to cite",
      -    "required": [
      -      "attribution",
      -      "license",
      -      "disclaimer",
      -      "notice"
      -    ],
      -    "type": "object"
      -  },
      -  "nextCursor": {
      -    "description": "Pass as `cursor` to get the next page; null on the last page",
      -    "type": [
      -      "string",
      -      "null"
      -    ]
      -  },
      -  "provenance": {
      -    "description": "Where this came from: the publisher of the dataset, the dataset and its version DOI, the record id, the original source (who published it and its URL), the day that source was last checked, and when this answer was retrieved",
      -    "properties": {
      -      "citeUrl": {
      -        "description": "The page to cite",
      -        "type": [
      -          "string",
      -          "null"
      -        ]
      -      },
      -      "dataset": {
      -        "description": "Dataset id",
      -        "type": "string"
      -      },
      -      "datasetTitle": {
      -        "type": "string"
      -      },
      -      "dateChecked": {
      -        "description": "YYYY-MM-DD the record was last checked against its source",
      -        "type": [
      -          "string",
      -          "null"
      -        ]
      -      },
      -      "doi": {
      -        "description": "Version DOI",
      -        "type": [
      -          "string",
      -          "null"
      -        ]
      -      },
      -      "doiUrl": {
      -        "type": [
      -          "string",
      -          "null"
      -        ]
      -      },
      -      "line": {
      -        "description": "The same facts as one sentence, to quote under an answer",
      -        "type": "string"
      -      },
      -      "publisher": {
      -        "description": "Publisher of the dataset",
      -        "type": "string"
      -      },
      -      "recordId": {
      -        "description": "Stable id of the record",
      -        "type": [
      -          "string",
      -          "null"
      -        ]
      -      },
      -      "retrievedAt": {
      -        "description": "ISO 8601 time this answer was served",
      -        "type": "string"
      -      },
      -      "source": {
      -        "description": "The original source: statute, rule, bar opinion, court report, agency table or platform policy",
      -        "type": [
      -          "string",
      -          "null"
      -        ]
      -      },
      -      "sourceKind": {
      -        "description": "primary or secondary",
      -        "type": [
      -          "string",
      -          "null"
      -        ]
      -      },
      -      "sourceUrl": {
      -        "type": [
      -          "string",
      -          "null"
      -        ]
      -      },
      -      "status": {
      -        "description": "P primary source, S secondary, D default (no specific rule found), U open question",
      -        "type": [
      -          "string",
      -          "null"
      -        ]
      -      },
      -      "version": {
      -        "description": "Dataset version",
      -        "type": "string"
      -      }
      -    },
      -    "required": [
      -      "publisher",
      -      "dataset",
      -      "version",
      -      "retrievedAt"
      -    ],
      -    "type": "object"
      -  }
      -}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / detail
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": "summary",
      +  "description": "summary (default): each record as its id, a 1-2 sentence text, status, date checked, one source URL and the page to cite. full: every field, every source and the per-record provenance.",
      +  "enum": [
      +    "summary",
      +    "full"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  4. Added

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful legal disclaimer and outlines what dimensions are returned, but it does not mention fees despite the title and adds no auth or rate-limit context.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core query and followed by a relevant disclaimer. It is efficient, though the omission of fees leaves a gap that conciseness alone cannot excuse.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values need not be explained. However, the description omits the fees dimension named in the title and gives no guidance on response_format or when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_state_rules.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The state parameter is documented in the schema, but response_format has only an enum and default with no explanation in either schema or description. With 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameter but adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 query: whether a state bar requires lawyers to file or submit ads for review, which ads, and when. It clearly identifies the resource and scope, though it omits the fees aspect promised by the title and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives named. The only implied usage is that the tool covers one state at a time.

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