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 employment 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

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it distinguishes published opinions from raw docket-record counts and clarifies that outcome breakdowns cover the full corpus rather than just the returned examples. It stops short of covering pagination or result-size limits outside the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and payload, followed by the usage trigger. The AND-heavy enumeration is dense but every clause maps to a distinct return component, so nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, naming cases, outcome breakdown, notable opinions, and docket counts. An agent could invoke this confidently; only minor gaps like result size behavior or empty-result handling remain.

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%, and both parameters are documented there, including the important note that limit affects only example opinions, not totals. The description only restates 'given an employer/company name' and adds no syntax, normalization, or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Given an employer/company name, return distinct federal cases...') and enumerates the exact payload. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_attorney_track_record and search_rulings because the subject is the employer's litigation footprint, not an attorney or a keyword search.

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 when a user names their employer and wants that company's litigation history + footprint,' which gives a clear triggering condition. It does not explicitly rule out or name alternatives such as get_attorney_track_record or search_rulings, so routing is implied rather than fully guided.

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?