Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Syfert Legal Research

by com.syfert
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Is this case still good law?

get_treatment
Read-onlyIdempotent

Is this case still good law? Returns the Syfertize treatment flag (red = overruled/superseded, yellow = questioned/distinguished, green = followed, procedural = cert/rehearing denied) plus the citing cases behind each signal with quoted context. A case can be green overall and red on the proposition you need it for (MCP14_20260925): propositions_summary lists the propositions courts cite it for (most-cited first), each with its OWN flag; pass proposition (your use of the case) and proposition_match returns the one that matches, with its negative_citers, and treatment.proposition_note states the result ("no proposition-level signal for this use" = only the case-level flag applies). A red, yellow or procedural flag also carries treatment.flag_reason (why it is flagged, in one line, as the case page shows it), treatment.flag_basis (overruled_by | subsequent_history | scope | citing_events | curation_pin | twin_carry | higher_court_limit | validated_annotations) and treatment.flag_evidence. compact=true returns only the flag, scope, overruled_by and the top negative citers (about 90% smaller). When the annotation verb (overruled_by.verb) and the scope's verb differ, flag_reason leads with the scope's and carries the other in parentheses (overruled_by.verb_note). A case_name alone also works: find_case decides, and a name that is not decisive returns candidates instead of an answer. A California Court of Appeal opinion with a Supreme Court docket event carries citability {status depublished | review_granted | transferred | review_decided, date, s_number, source, rule Cal. R. Ct. 8.1115}; depublished / review granted / transferred lead with status_warning (a depublished opinion may not be cited; one under review has no binding effect, is citable for persuasive value and to establish a conflict in authority, and the cite must note the grant; one transferred with directions to vacate is generally not citable; order_says quotes the order when held); old_rule true = review granted before 2016-07-01, when the grant itself depublished the opinion (a later decision did not restore it): may_cite no, check the docket. A citation that two or more different cases carry (a table page, two decisions at one page) answers with ambiguous_citation=true and candidates: pass case_name or cluster_id to choose.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
compactNoOptional (default false): a short answer (about 2-4 KB instead of 20-50 KB) with the same flag, scope, flag_reason / flag_basis and overruled_by, risk_signals, the first 5 negative citers with a one-line context, 3 propositions_summary rows and counts.
citationNoReporter citation (used if cluster_id absent)
case_nameNoCase name; lets a citation newer than the reporter index resolve by name + date (candidates returned if several share the name)
cluster_idNoCluster id of the case
max_citersNoMax citing-case detail rows (default 25, max 100; negative signals sort first)
propositionNoOptional: the point you cite this case for, in your words or as quoted; returns proposition_match (that proposition's own flag and negative citers) and treatment.proposition_note

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / compact
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional (default false): a short answer (about 2-4 KB instead of 20-50 KB) with the same flag, scope, flag_reason / flag_basis and overruled_by, risk_signals, the first 5 negative citers with a one-line context, 3 propositions_summary rows and counts.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/closed-world), the description discloses the semantic payload: flag meanings, flag_basis enumerations, the proposition-level vs case-level distinction, the compact payload contract, California depublication/review rules and the old_rule citability caveat. That is exactly the context an agent needs to interpret results correctly, which annotations alone cannot supply.

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 purpose and flag semantics are front-loaded, but the body degenerates into a dense single-paragraph wall of parentheticals and enumerated keywords. Much of it earns its place (citability, ambiguity handling), yet it would be far more usable broken into short labeled sections.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and edge cases, and it does: treatment structure, flag_reason/flag_basis/flag_evidence, compact shape, proposition matching, citability statuses and ambiguous-citation candidates. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning: what proposition does (proposition_match, negative_citers, treatment.proposition_note, and the 'no proposition-level signal' fallback) and how case_name triggers find_case candidate resolution. It adds modest value for max_citers/compact that the schema already documents.

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 title/opening sentence ('Is this case still good law? Returns the Syfertize treatment flag') gives a specific verb+resource, and the description enumerates what comes back (flag colors, citing cases, flag_reason/basis/evidence, citability). It doesn't explicitly contrast against overlapping siblings like check_citation, get_citing_cases or suggest_treatment, so the 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 Guidelines4/5

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

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance: pass proposition when your need is proposition-specific, use compact=true when you want a ~90% smaller answer, pass case_name when the citation isn't decisive, and pass case_name/cluster_id to resolve ambiguous citations. It falls short of naming when *not* to use this tool versus check_citation or get_citing_cases.

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

All Syfert Legal Research 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