Skip to main content
Glama

Find one case by citation or caption

find_case
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fast direct lookup: give a citation or a case caption and get THE case (or 'not decisive' with up to 5 candidates) without a full-text search. Use search_cases for topics and words. A citation ("384 U.S. 436", "Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966)", "449 F. App'x 901", "2019-Ohio-10") resolves through the reporter index; when a case name is given (in the query or as expected_case_name) and the case at that citation carries a different name, the answer is NOT decisive (problem name_mismatch) and names the case that is really there. A caption ("Miranda v. Arizona", or one distinctive name such as "Celotex") is decisive when the top match is at least twice as strong as the runner-up, or when the case name IS the caption word for word (punctuation, company suffixes and abbreviations read) for one decision in the corpus (several filings of one decision count once: the answer is the Published, reported record, the others listed in also_filed_as) -- an exact caption outranks any opinion-text match; common captions ("Smith v. Jones", "State v. Johnson") are not decisive by design. A docket number ("2D09-5223", "No. 1:15-cv-00001" with court, "17-1618") resolves through the docket index: decisive when one case carries it, otherwise problem ambiguous_docket with the candidates (a Supreme Court number also matches its cert-stage entries). The answer carries case (bluebook, url, link_md, treatment_flag), kind (citation|caption|docket), decisive, candidates, and a note when not decisive. A red, yellow or procedural case also carries treatment_flag_reason and treatment_flag_basis. A Westlaw / Lexis number whose sources disagree about the case carries database_caution. For a caption that is not decisive, the candidates whose caption carries both parties (abbreviations and acronyms read) are listed first, marked matched_by caption, with caption_matches = how many decisions carry it. A misspelt or partial caption that nothing matches ("Palsgraph v. Long Island R.R.", "City of Keller") gets suggestions appended to candidates, marked matched_by caption_fuzzy (a close spelling of the party names, or a caption that begins with the one party given), with did_you_mean; they never make the answer decisive. Short forms (MCP101): "[Name, ]303 U.S. at 288" is read through the page run of the case that holds the page; for id., ibid. or supra pass sentence (the draft sentence containing it) and quotation: id. binds to the citation before it in that sentence, never to a case named earlier in the conversation. year and quotation break a tie among caption candidates. "Miranda, 384 U.S. 436" (one name before the cite) is read as that cite with the name checked.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNoOptional: the decision year as written. Breaks a tie between candidate cases; never overrides a cite that resolves
courtNoOptional court id filter for a caption (same syntax as search_cases court); takes precedence over state
queryYesA citation, a case caption or a docket number, e.g. "410 U.S. 113", "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)", "Roe v. Wade", "Celotex", "2D09-5223"
stateNoOptional two-letter state code (or name) narrowing a caption to that state's own courts
sentenceNoOptional: the sentence of the draft that contains this cite, as written (for id., ibid. or supra include the sentence before it). Binds id., ibid., supra and short forms ("Jones, 590 F.2d at 174") to the citation before them in it, and reads the case name written right before a bare short form
quotationNoOptional: the words quoted with this cite. Breaks a tie between candidate cases: the one whose opinion holds the words
expected_case_nameNoThe case name the citation is supposed to be; the answer is not decisive when the case at the citation carries a different name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / quotation
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional: the words quoted with this cite. Breaks a tie between candidate cases: the one whose opinion holds the words",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / sentence
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional: the sentence of the draft that contains this cite, as written (for id., ibid. or supra include the sentence before it). Binds id., ibid., supra and short forms (\"Jones, 590 F.2d at 174\") to the citation before them in it, and reads the case name written right before a bare short form",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / year
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional: the decision year as written. Breaks a tie between candidate cases; never overrides a cite that resolves",
      +  "type": "integer"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"A citation or a case caption, e.g. \"410 U.S. 113\", \"Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)\", \"Roe v. Wade\", \"Celotex\""New value: +"A citation, a case caption or a docket number, e.g. \"410 U.S. 113\", \"Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)\", \"Roe v. Wade\", \"Celotex\", \"2D09-5223\""
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial rules: name_mismatch and ambiguous_docket problems, candidate ordering, fuzzy caption suggestions, treatment flags, database_caution, and exact-caption precedence. It also discloses failure modes and return fields beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening is front-loaded with the core purpose and alternative tool, and nearly every sentence is substantive. However, the description is an extremely long, dense single paragraph mixing citation, caption, docket, fuzzy-match, and short-form rules, making it harder to scan than necessary for an agent choosing and invoking the tool.

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?

Given a complex seven-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers query types, decisive versus non-decisive outcomes, return fields such as case, kind, candidates, and treatment_flag, and edge cases like short forms and fuzzy captions. It provides enough detail for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning well beyond the schema: expected_case_name triggers a non-decisive name_mismatch, year and quotation break ties but never override resolving citations, court takes precedence over state, and sentence binds id./ibid./supra to the prior citation in the sentence. These are invocation rules the schema does not fully capture.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: direct lookup of one case by citation, caption, or docket number, returning the case or candidates. It explicitly distinguishes this from search_cases, which is for topics and words, so an agent can tell the two apart immediately.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says to use search_cases for topics and words, and lays out when find_case is appropriate: citations, captions, and docket numbers. It also explains when an answer is decisive versus not decisive for each query type, giving clear routing and outcome guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources