Workers' Rights

Get an employer's litigation track record

get_employer_track_record

Read-only

Given an employer/company name, return distinct federal cases and trusted published opinions that involve that employer, the breakdown of outcomes (employee wins, employer wins, settlements, dismissals), the most notable recent opinions, AND the count of federal docket records on file (cases that may not have a written opinion). Use this when a user names their employer and wants that company's litigation history + footprint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Number of example published opinions to return (1–25). The total count and outcome breakdown reflect the full corpus, not just these examples.
`employer`	Yes	Employer/company name to look up, e.g. "Walmart", "Acme Corporation". Common suffixes like Inc/Corp/LLC are ignored when matching.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 4, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

Changed1 schema field changedAug 20, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Previous value: -"Number of example cases to return (1–25). The total count and outcome breakdown reflect the full corpus, not just these examples."New value: +"Number of example published opinions to return (1–25). The total count and outcome breakdown reflect the full corpus, not just these examples."

Changed2 schema fields changedJul 15, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- changedInput schema / required
```
Previous value: -[
-  "employer",
-  "limit"
-]New value: +[
+  "employer"
+]
```
First observedJun 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, annotations already establish safety. The description adds useful behavioral context: it covers only federal cases and trusted published opinions, includes docket records without opinions, and distinguishes the example limit from the full-corpus totals. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, and the usage trigger is a single final sentence. It packs many output components into one long sentence, but there is no wasted wording or repetition of schema details.

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?

Without an output schema, the description carries the burden of listing return values, and it does so thoroughly: cases, opinions, outcome breakdown, notable opinions, and docket counts. It also clarifies scope (federal, trusted, published) and when to call it, making the tool actionable for an agent.

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 schema already documents employer and limit, including suffix-matching behavior and the limit range. The description reinforces that the tool takes an employer/company name, but does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning 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?

The description names a specific verb (return) and resource (an employer's litigation track record), and enumerates the exact outputs: distinct federal cases, trusted published opinions, outcome breakdown, notable opinions, and docket count. The phrase 'when a user names their employer' clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_attorney_track_record.

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?

'Use this when a user names their employer and wants that company's litigation history + footprint' gives explicit invocation context. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the trigger condition is clear enough for an agent.

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

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?