Probative legal-marketing data

Federal MDL dockets by actions pending

list_mdl_dockets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) dockets from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's monthly pending-dockets reports, largest first. Results are not legal advice.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Records per page (1 to 25)
`query`	No	Words in the docket title or court, e.g. "hernia mesh"
`cursor`	No	The nextCursor from the previous page; leave out for the first…
`docket`	No	One docket, e.g. MDL-2738 or 2738; returns its monthly history
`response_format`	No		concise

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

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"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / cursor / description

Previous value: -"The nextCursor from the previous page; leave out for the first page"New value: +"The nextCursor from the previous page; leave out for the first…"

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"
-  }
-}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

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"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / limit / default
```
Previous value: -10New value: +5
```

AddedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds provenance and ordering, but omits pagination behavior despite a `cursor` parameter, and says nothing about result volume limits or what the monthly history mode returns.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carries source, scope, and ordering, with the legal disclaimer kept short. No filler or redundancy; slightly more could be spent on usage routing instead of the disclaimer.

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, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a five-parameter tool with a paginated/dual-mode design, the description omits pagination flow and when to prefer `query` over `docket` — gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 80%, so the schema already explains `limit`, `query`, `cursor`, and `docket` including the MDL-2738 pattern. The description adds nothing about parameters — only the implicit sort order from 'largest first'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific resource (federal MDL dockets) and its authoritative source (JPML monthly pending-dockets reports), plus the sort order (largest first). It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, none of which deal with MDL data. The verb is only implied, but 'dockets ... largest first' makes the list semantics obvious.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on the two distinct modes the schema exposes (browse/paginate all dockets vs. pass `docket` for one docket's monthly history vs. `query` for title/court matching). The agent must infer all routing from the schema alone.

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

All Probative legal-marketing data tools Inspect

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

Need Help?