Workers' Rights

Search employment-law rulings

search_rulings

Read-only

Search published employment-law rulings from our research corpus by keyword, law, court, federal circuit, state, outcome, and date. Returns published opinions with citations, outcomes, procedural stage, employers, claim types, damages, and links to the full opinion. Use this to ground any claim about how employment cases have been decided. Results are quality-filtered (low-confidence and junk rows excluded).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`law`	No	Filter by a related law id, e.g. "title-vii", "adea", "ada", "fmla", "flsa".
`court`	No	Filter by CourtListener court id, e.g. "scotus", "ca11" (11th Circuit).
`limit`	No	Max rulings to return (1–25).
`query`	No	Free-text search across case name and opinion snippet (e.g. "pregnancy discrimination retaliation").
`state`	No	Two-letter US state code the case was filed in, e.g. "FL", "CA".
`circuit`	No	Filter to a federal appeals circuit (the appeals court plus its district courts). Preferred values: first-circuit, second-circuit, third-circuit, fourth-circuit, fifth-circuit, sixth-circuit, seventh-circuit, eighth-circuit, ninth-circuit, tenth-circuit, eleventh-circuit, dc-circuit, federal-circuit. Display forms like "Eleventh Circuit" or "11th" are also accepted.
`date_to`	No	Latest filing date (YYYY-MM-DD).
`outcome`	No	Filter to a specific case outcome.
`date_from`	No	Earliest filing date (YYYY-MM-DD).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 4, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
Changed2 schema fields changedJul 15, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "limit"
-]
```

Changed1 schema field changedJul 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / circuit

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filter to a federal appeals circuit (the appeals court plus its district courts). Preferred values: first-circuit, second-circuit, third-circuit, fourth-circuit, fifth-circuit, sixth-circuit, seventh-circuit, eighth-circuit, ninth-circuit, tenth-circuit, eleventh-circuit, dc-circuit, federal-circuit. Display forms like \"Eleventh Circuit\" or \"11th\" are also accepted.",
+  "maxLength": 40,
+  "type": "string"
+}

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=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral value by specifying return fields ('citations, outcomes, procedural stage...') and the quality filter ('low-confidence and junk rows excluded'), which is not visible in annotations or 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope and filters, return fields, and usage context plus quality filtering. No redundant phrasing, and the most identifying action verb is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, filter dimensions, return content, use case, and quality behavior, which is sufficient for a 9-parameter search tool with no output schema. It does not delineate sorting or filter combination semantics, but the schema already covers parameter formats and limits, so those gaps are minor.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description reiterates the filter dimensions but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema; it earns the baseline 3 for no gaps to compensate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search published employment-law rulings from our research corpus,' and enumerates the filter dimensions. The clause 'Use this to ground any claim about how employment cases have been decided' positions it clearly against siblings like explain_my_rights or find_similar_cases.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to ground any claim about how employment cases have been decided.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for case-law search rather than for procedural guidance or attorney matching.

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?