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

Search the lawyer advertising rules

search_rules

Read-onlyIdempotent

Keyword search over every rule cell. States (names, or capitalized codes like TX) and topics (filing, disclaimer, waiting period, testimonials, referral, Spanish, recording, texting, privacy) named in the query narrow the results. Deterministic keyword matching, no AI. Returns the best-matching cells with sources. Not legal advice.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes	For example "Florida filing fee" or "testimonials in New York"
`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.

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
```

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: deterministic keyword matching with no AI, best-match ranking, source inclusion, and a 'not legal advice' disclaimer.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then query-shaping guidance, then behavioral notes and disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Has an output schema, so return shape need not be fully restated; the description still notes sources are returned. Safety behavior is covered by annotations, and the deterministic/no-AI and disclaimer notes complete the picture for an agent deciding to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% and the schema itself documents query examples and the detail enum. The description adds real semantic value by explaining that state names/codes and topic terms in the query narrow results, though it says nothing about the limit parameter beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Keyword search over every rule cell') and clearly frames it as a search tool returning best-matching cells with sources. This distinguishes it from retrieval-oriented siblings like get_rule and get_state_rules.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear guidance on how to shape the query via state names/codes and topical keywords, which is useful context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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?