bva-corpus

Find similar appeals

find_similar_appeals

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find source-linked recent Board decisions mentioning one or more canonical conditions. Resolves exact names, slugs and aliases; inspects at most the 50 most recent indexed decisions per condition, then applies optional decision-level filters. Results are research examples, not a representative sample, complete filtered cohort, condition-specific outcomes or chances of winning. Grant rates are withheld. Verify each issue against the original Board decision.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`conditions`	Yes	Canonical names, slugs or exact aliases, e.g. ["PTSD", "tinnitus"]. Matches ANY supplied condition. Use list_conditions to discover valid slugs.
`is_pact_act`	No
`sample_limit`	No
`exposure_basis`	No
`service_connection_theory`	No

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.

Changed7 schema fields changedSep 21, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / conditions / default
```
Removed value: -[]
```
- changedInput schema / properties / conditions / description
```
Previous value: -"Claimed conditions, e.g. [\"PTSD\",\"tinnitus\"]. The strongest similarity signal."New value: +"Canonical names, slugs or exact aliases, e.g. [\"PTSD\", \"tinnitus\"]. Matches ANY supplied condition. Use list_conditions to discover valid slugs."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / conditions / items / maxLength
```
Added value: +80
```
- addedInput schema / properties / conditions / items / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / conditions / maxItems
```
Added value: +5
```
- addedInput schema / properties / conditions / minItems
```
Added value: +1
```
- changedInput schema / required
```
Previous value: -[]New value: +[
+  "conditions"
+]
```
Changed1 schema field changedJul 15, 2026
- changedInput schema / required
```
Previous value: -[
-  "conditions"
-]New value: +[]
```

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

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses several behavioral specifics: name/slug/alias resolution, a 50-decision-per-condition inspection cap, optional decision-level filtering, non-representative results, withheld grant rates, and the need to verify each issue against the original decision. No statement contradicts the annotations.

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?

Each sentence adds distinct information: core operation, resolution and filtering behavior, then the limitations and verification caveats. The material is dense but front-loaded and contains no filler or restatement of the schema.

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 tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the operation, algorithm, limitations, and safety caveats well. It is slightly incomplete in not providing parameter-level detail for four optional filters and in not routing to sibling tools, but the enums and output schema reduce the impact of those omissions.

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 only 20%; the description compensates for the conditions parameter by explaining canonical names, slugs, aliases, and the per-condition inspection window. However, it only collectively calls the remaining parameters 'optional decision-level filters' and does not explain is_pact_act, sample_limit, exposure_basis, or service_connection_theory individually, leaving the enums to inference.

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 clearly states the operation (find source-linked recent Board decisions mentioning canonical conditions) and the resource/scope, so an agent understands the tool's core purpose. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as search_bva_decisions or get_condition_report, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

The description gives explicit negative guidance: results are research examples, not a representative sample, complete filtered cohort, outcomes, or chances of winning, and grant rates are withheld. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead' routing to sibling tools, but the boundary of appropriate use is clear.

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?