Skip to main content
Glama

Probative legal-marketing data

by com.probativegrowth
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin
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

One lawyer advertising rule in one state

get_rule
Read-onlyIdempotent

One state's rule on one topic: the plain-English text, status (P/S/D/U), note, sources with dates, the cell URL and a one-sentence citation. Not legal advice.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateYesTwo-letter code (TX), or DC. Full names (Texas) also work.
topicYesfiling: 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
detailNosummary (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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metaYesCredit line (attribution), citation, DOI, version, license (CC BY 4.0), disclaimer, notice and the page to cite
nextCursorNoPass as `cursor` to get the next page; null on the last page
provenanceYesWhere 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.

  1. 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"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • 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"
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds return-field inventory and a 'Not legal advice' disclaimer, which is real context. However, the cryptic status codes P/S/D/U are introduced without definition and there is no mention of what happens when a state/topic cell is empty.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that wastes no words; scope comes first, contents second, caveat last. Slightly dense in the middle with the unexplained status codes, but structurally efficient.

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 explanation is optional (the description spends words on it anyway). The remaining real gaps are the undefined status codes and no coverage of empty/missing-rule behavior, which matter for a lookup tool keyed on a state×topic matrix.

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%: state format, the nine topic values with glosses, and the summary/full detail trade-off are all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond restating that only one state and one topic are involved, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource with scope: a single state's rule on a single topic, and enumerates what comes back (text, status, note, sources, citation). It contrasts implicitly with list/search siblings (get_state_rules, search_rules) by emphasizing 'one state's rule on one topic', but never names an alternative, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

The one-state/one-topic phrasing implies the use case (known state + known topic → single record), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to get_state_rules/search_rules/compare_states. The agent must infer the selection rule.

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 toolsInspect
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