Probative legal-marketing data

Search the lawyer advertising rules

search_rules

Read-onlyIdempotent

Keyword search across all rule text, for a word or claim such as "expert" or "guaranteed results". Results are not legal advice.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes	For example "Florida filing fee" or "expert"
`response_format`	No		concise

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / detail

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "summary",
-  "enum": [
-    "summary",
-    "full"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / properties / query / description

Previous value: -"For example \"Florida filing fee\" or \"testimonials in New York\""New value: +"For example \"Florida filing fee\" or \"expert\""

addedInput schema / properties / response_format

Added value: +{
+  "default": "concise",
+  "enum": [
+    "concise",
+    "detailed"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

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: -8New value: +5
```

AddedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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 fully covered. The description adds a scope statement ("across ALL rule text") and a disclaimer that results are not legal advice, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or how many rules are matched by default beyond what annotations and the output schema already imply.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the example terms immediately illustrating acceptable input. No filler; the disclaimer is one clause.

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-value shape need not be explained, and the annotations cover side effects. Still, for a 3-parameter search tool the description leaves the agent guessing about result count/truncation behavior (`limit`, capped at 25) and what `response_format` changes, which are the practical decision points when calling it.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33%: only `query` carries a schema description, and the description's examples for it largely duplicate that. Neither `limit` (max 25, default 5) nor `response_format` (concise vs. detailed) is mentioned in the description, so with sub-50% coverage the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (keyword search across all rule text) and clarifies scope with concrete example terms like "expert" and "guaranteed results", which makes the intended query type unambiguous. It does not name or exclude any of the numerous search-adjacent siblings (search, search_ethics_opinions, get_rule, get_state_rules), so the agent must infer that this is the rule-text-wide search rather than a targeted lookup.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied only through the example claims ("expert", "guaranteed results"), which suggests the tool is for checking whether ad copy language appears in the rules. There is no statement of when to prefer it over get_rule, get_state_rules, or search_ethics_opinions, and no exclusions or preconditions.

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?