Probative legal-marketing data

This connector has been deprecated

Duplicate listing. The maintained listing for this server is Probative legal-marketing data, synced with the official MCP Registry entry com.probativegrowth/legal-marketing-data. Same endpoint: https://probativegrowth.com/mcp

Compare one rule across states

compare_states

Read-onlyIdempotent

Which states do what: one ad-rule topic (e.g. the waiting period before contacting accident victims, texting, filing) side by side across states, or all 50 and DC. Results are not legal advice.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	Yes
`states`	No	Two-letter codes. Leave out for every jurisdiction.
`response_format`	No		concise

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 29, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / detail

Removed 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"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / response_format

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

removedInput schema / properties / states / items / description

Removed value: -"Two-letter code (TX), or DC. Full names (Texas) also work."

removedInput schema / properties / topic / description

Removed value: -"filing: Ad filing or review; requiredContent: What each ad must include; waitingPeriod: Waiting period for targeted injury contact; claims: Results, testimonials and “specialist” claims; referral: Referral services and lead generators; language: Ads in Spanish and other languages; recording: Call-recording consent; texting: Texting and telemarketing law; privacy: Privacy and health-data law"

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"
-  }
-}

Changed1 schema field 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"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 27, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / nextCursor

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Pass as `cursor` to get the next page; null on the last page",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / provenance

Added value: +{
+  "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"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "meta"
-]New value: +[
+  "meta",
+  "provenance"
+]

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'side by side' comparison framing and a legal-advice disclaimer, but says nothing about result size, coverage gaps, or freshness across jurisdictions.

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?

Front-loaded with the core value proposition and short enough to scan in one pass. The parenthetical examples earn their space by disambiguating 'topic,' though the phrasing is slightly run-on.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape needn't be described, and the description covers purpose, topic scope, and the default all-jurisdiction behavior. The main remaining gap is guidance on how this relates to the single-state and search siblings.

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?

Coverage is only 33%, so the description carries extra weight; it partially compensates by giving concrete topic examples that map onto the enum. However, the 'leave out for every jurisdiction' behavior for states merely restates the schema description, and response_format is never mentioned in prose.

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?

States a concrete verb-and-resource: it compares one ad-rule topic side by side across states or all 50 plus DC. The examples (waiting period, texting, filing) make the resource tangible. It doesn't name the neighboring single-state tools, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 by the multi-state framing and the note that omitting states covers every jurisdiction, but the description never says when to prefer this over get_state_rules, get_rule, or search_rules. An agent must infer the split from names 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?