Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

New York State Workers' Compensation Hub

by com.thecompdesk
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Mark a hearing note posted

mark_hearing_note_posted
Idempotent

Signed-in Pro or Firm attorneys only. After the note is in the attorney's case-management system AND the attorney has confirmed it, marks that queued note posted in their Pro Workspace (status entered, by Claude), with the system and an optional reference (for example the matter or note id). Changes nothing else: the note's text and record stay as the attorney wrote them. A draft, a note already posted, or a note that is not theirs is not touched.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "system": "<system>"
    },
    "name": "mark_hearing_note_posted"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe note id.
systemYesWhere it was posted.
external_refNoOptional. The record id or link in that system.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover only the safety/idempotency profile; the description adds the role gate ("Signed-in Pro or Firm attorneys only"), the precise field mutation (status plus attribution to Claude plus system and reference), and a firm non-effects guarantee ("the note's text and record stay as the attorney wrote them"). That is meaningful context the annotations do not provide.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the eligibility gate and followed by the effect and the non-effects, so nothing is buried. The first sentence is dense with parentheticals ("(status entered, by Claude)", "(for example the matter or note id)") that could be trimmed slightly.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a low-risk state-mutation with three well-documented parameters, the description covers eligibility, trigger conditions, effect, and non-effects completely. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the description never indicates what the call returns (e.g., the updated note or a confirmation), leaving the agent to guess the response shape.

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 coverage is 100%, with the id pattern, system enum, and external_ref max length all documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a light gloss on system ("Where it was posted") and an example for the optional reference ("for example the matter or note id"), which is marginal 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 ("marks that queued note posted in their Pro Workspace") plus the exact state change ("status entered, by Claude"), which distinguishes it from the read-only siblings get_hearing_note and list_hearing_notes without needing to name them.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (the note must already be in the case-management system AND confirmed by the attorney) and explicit exclusions ("A draft, a note already posted, or a note that is not theirs is not touched"). An agent can decide applicability without inference.

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

All New York State Workers' Compensation Hub 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