Employment Lawyers Group

Search the firm's pages

search_pages

Read-only

Keyword search over the firm's published pages (employment-law topics, attorney profiles, case results). Returns title, summary, URL and a Markdown URL for each match.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`site`	No	Site/office host, e.g. sacramentolaborattorney.com. Omit for the Los Angeles office.
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes	Topic, e.g. "unpaid overtime" or "fired after medical leave"

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No
`results`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "query": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "description": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "markdown_url": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "score": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "site": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "url": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile and the closed-world scope are covered structurally. The description reinforces the closed-world scope ('the firm's published pages') and names the returned fields, but adds nothing about result limits, ordering, pagination, or what happens at the 25-item cap.

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, zero filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded before the return-value sentence. Nothing needs to be re-read or trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so spelling out return fields is not strictly required, and annotations cover safety. However, for a search tool the description is silent on result count behavior, ordering/relevance, and whether the 25-result cap means truncation — gaps the schema does not fill either.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 67% (site and query are documented, limit is not), and the description mentions no parameters at all — no explanation of the site default to the Los Angeles office, the keyword semantics of query, or the effect of limit. It therefore does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Keyword search over the firm's published pages') and enumerates the content scope (employment-law topics, attorney profiles, case results). No sibling tool offers search, so an agent can immediately separate this from get_firm_info, list_offices, or the request_* tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description never says when to prefer this tool, when not to use it, or what the alternatives are for related information needs (e.g. firm details via get_firm_info, offices via list_offices). Usage is only inferable from the purpose statement itself, which is no guidance at all.

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

All Employment Lawyers Group 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?