bva-corpus

Explain appeal options

explain_appeal_options

Read-onlyIdempotent

Explain available review options only after the user confirms the actual decision stage and ordinary modernized-review eligibility. Initial/Supplemental, HLR and final Board decisions have different options; preferences do not establish eligibility. Unknown, legacy, contested, remand-only and pending-review contexts withhold tailored lanes. No personal deadline calculation. Educational only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wants_hearing`	No	Does the veteran want a hearing before a judge? This never makes a Board appeal available.
`decision_stage`	No	Actual stage explicitly identified by the user from their own notice. Never infer from a denial, hearing preference, or historical decision.
`has_new_evidence`	No	Does the veteran have new, relevant evidence to add?
`eligible_review_context_confirmed`	No	True only when the user confirms an ordinary modernized, non-contested issue within the applicable review window, with no pending review, motion or special exception. False or omitted withholds tailored lanes. This does not verify a filing deadline.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Tool-specific result payload.
`link`	Yes	Tagged deep link into the matching veterans-rights.com page.
`disclaimer`	Yes	Standing not-legal-advice / not-VA framing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / decision_stage

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Actual stage explicitly identified by the user from their own notice. Never infer from a denial, hearing preference, or historical decision.",
+  "enum": [
+    "initial-or-supplemental",
+    "higher-level-review",
+    "board-final",
+    "board-evidence-pending",
+    "unknown",
+    "board-remand",
+    "legacy",
+    "contested"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / eligible_review_context_confirmed / description

Previous value: -"Only true when the user explicitly confirms this is an initial claim or Supplemental Claim decision within one year and is not a contested claim. Never infer this from preferences."New value: +"True only when the user confirms an ordinary modernized, non-contested issue within the applicable review window, with no pending review, motion or special exception. False or omitted withholds tailored lanes. This does not verify a filing deadline."

changedInput schema / properties / wants_hearing / description

Previous value: -"Does the veteran want a hearing before a judge?"New value: +"Does the veteran want a hearing before a judge? This never makes a Board appeal available."

Changed1 schema field changedSep 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / eligible_review_context_confirmed

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only true when the user explicitly confirms this is an initial claim or Supplemental Claim decision within one year and is not a contested claim. Never infer this from preferences.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedJun 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Tool-specific result payload.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "disclaimer": {
+      "description": "Standing not-legal-advice / not-VA framing.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "link": {
+      "description": "Tagged deep link into the matching veterans-rights.com page.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "data",
+    "link",
+    "disclaimer"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJun 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, yet the description adds real behavioral context: it withholds tailored lanes in ambiguous contexts and disclaims deadline calculation and educational-only status. It does not explain response format, but that is covered by the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary precondition and tightly written, but the middle is dense and clause-stacked (multiple withheld contexts plus eligibility caveats), making it slightly harder to parse at a glance than an ideal definition.

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 four-parameter, zero-required educational tool with a full output schema and rich parameter descriptions, the definition covers the gating logic and disclaimers an agent needs. It could be marginally clearer about what happens when only partial confirmations are supplied, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the enum stages and boolean flags are already fully documented, including cautions like 'never infer from a denial, hearing preference, or historical decision.' The description reinforces the gating logic but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Explain available review options') and delineates the exact scope: only initial/supplemental, HLR, and Board final decisions carry tailored lanes. It is clear enough to separate from siblings like get_claim_process or find_similar_appeals, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 gives an explicit precondition ('only after the user confirms the actual decision stage and ordinary modernized-review eligibility'), an explicit set of when-not contexts ('Unknown, legacy, contested, remand-only and pending-review contexts withhold tailored lanes'), and warns that 'preferences do not establish eligibility.' Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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

All bva-corpus 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?