Workers' Rights

Evidence preservation checklist (before losing access)

get_evidence_preservation_checklist

Read-only

Concrete checklist for a worker who senses termination coming or is in a deteriorating work situation: what to save (emails, chat DMs, performance reviews, HR records, pay records), in what order, and how to do it without crossing lines — preserving your own employment record is legal; taking company IP is not. Use this whenever someone says they think they are about to be fired, fears retaliation is escalating, mentions a PIP or sudden access changes, or asks what to do before reporting discrimination. Sections: 'today' (highest-leverage, minutes matter), 'this-week', 'quiet' (low-priority prep). Time-sensitive — employers often revoke system access during the termination call itself.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`group`	No	Checklist section for a focused list: 'today' (highest-leverage, do first), 'this-week', or 'quiet' (lower-priority quiet prep). Omit for the full checklist.

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds value beyond annotations by explaining the checklist is time-sensitive, includes legal boundaries (preserving employment record is legal, taking company IP is not), and sections have priorities. Does not contradict 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?

Well-structured with clear front-loading of purpose, then use cases, then sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Length is appropriate for the complexity.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains what the checklist contains (sections, order, legal boundaries) sufficiently. Covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with enum descriptions. The description enhances the 'group' parameter by adding context: 'today' is highest-leverage minutes matter, 'quiet' is low-priority prep. This adds meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states it provides a 'concrete checklist' for workers anticipating termination, specifying what to save and in what order. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'explain_my_rights' or 'find_employment_attorney'.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases: 'when someone says they think they are about to be fired, fears retaliation, PIP, access changes, before reporting discrimination'. Provides clear when-to-use guidance without needing exclusions.

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?