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 (before or after first use), the standard, expedited and late fees in US dollars, the portal or method, how long to keep copies, and the rule cited. One record per state or DC, read from the state's rules of professional conduct and bar pages, each with its sources and the day they were read. Results summarize public sources for marketing planning; they are not legal advice.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`state`	Yes	Two-letter code (TX) or DC; full names (Texas) also work
`detail`	No	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.	summary

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`meta`	Yes	Credit line (attribution), citation, DOI, version, license (CC BY 4.0), disclaimer, notice and the page to cite
`nextCursor`	No	Pass as `cursor` to get the next page; null on the last page
`provenance`	Yes	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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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"
+}

AddedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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 bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: one record per state or DC, sourced from state rules of professional conduct and bar pages, with per-source provenance and the date read. The 'not legal advice' caveat is a meaningful disclosure the annotations do not carry. Return format and pagination are not covered, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core question ('Whether a state's bar requires lawyers to file or submit ads for review') is front-loaded, then the field inventory, then provenance, then the disclaimer — each sentence in a distinct role. Dense but no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-state read-only lookup with a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, nothing an agent needs is missing: scope, source authority, freshness ('the day they were read'), detail levels and the legal-advice boundary are all stated.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the two-letter-or-full-name acceptance and the summary/full enum behavior. The description reinforces the 'one record per state or DC' scope of the state parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 information need — whether a state bar requires ad filing, plus fees, timing, portal, retention and cited rule — for one state or DC. That is far more concrete than the title alone. It stops short of differentiating itself from near siblings such as get_state_rules, calculate_fee_cap or get_attorney_fee_caps, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 only implied: 'Results summarize public sources for marketing planning; they are not legal advice' signals the intended context but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use rules. No alternative tool is named, even though compare_states and get_state_rules plausibly overlap, leaving routing to inference.

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?