Workers' Rights

Explain applicable employment-law rights

explain_my_rights

Read-only

Explain which federal (and state, if a state is given) employment laws may protect a worker based on the type of issue (e.g. discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination) and/or the protected class involved (e.g. race, sex, age, disability, pregnancy). Returns the relevant statutes with citations, who they cover (employer-size thresholds), filing deadlines and agencies, and available remedies. Use this to ground an answer about a worker’s legal protections. Deadline guidance covers private-sector and state/local government workers; federal employees follow a separate process with a much shorter deadline (45 days to contact their agency's EEO counselor). Educational information, not legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`issue`	No	Type of workplace issue, e.g. "discrimination", "harassment", "retaliation", "wrongful termination", "unpaid wages", "disability accommodation".
`state`	No	US state (2-letter code or full name) to include state-specific protections and the correct EEOC filing deadline.
`protected_class`	No	Protected characteristic involved, e.g. "race", "sex", "age", "disability", "religion", "national origin", "pregnancy".

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. Description adds context about return content, scope limitations, and the educational nature, which are useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Description is a single paragraph without wasted words, front-loading the purpose. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it's concise and informative.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values: statutes, citations, employer thresholds, deadlines, agencies, remedies. Also addresses scope and limitations for federal employees. No gaps for a knowledge-base tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. Description adds value by explaining what the tool returns for each parameter combination, including caveats about federal employee deadlines. Baseline 3, elevated for added context.

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 exactly what the tool does: explain applicable federal (and optionally state) employment laws based on issue and/or protected class. Differentiates from sibling tools like find_employment_attorney or find_similar_cases by focusing on legal rights explanation.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to ground an answer about a worker’s legal protections' and notes scope (private-sector, state/local government vs. federal employees). Also clarifies it's educational, not legal advice. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but is clear enough.

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

All Workers' Rights tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: legal explanation, attorney lookup, case analytics, attorney history, employer history, EEOC process, evidence preservation, corpus stats, and ruling search. Even the two case-research tools are clearly differentiated by input type and output (aggregate outcomes vs. individual rulings).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, with 'get_*' used for retrieval tools, 'find_*' for lookup tools, and 'search_*'/'explain_*' for their respective functions. There is no mixing of naming conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well-scoped for a workers' rights research and guidance server. Each tool covers a meaningful capability without redundancy, and the count is comfortably within the expected range for a focused domain server.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full worker-facing research journey: understanding rights, preserving evidence, navigating EEOC process, researching precedents and outcomes, finding attorneys, and checking attorney/employer track records. No critical dead-end or missing core operation is apparent for the stated informational purpose.

Resources

Need Help?