Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

MCP server for legal data including court records, case law, legal filings, and regulatory information for AI agents.

Status
Unhealthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceB
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

A single tool's name follows a clear verb_noun pattern ('search_court_records'), which is consistent.

Tool Count1/5

One tool for the broad domain of legal and court records is severely insufficient; a typical server would require multiple tools for different operations (e.g., case details, filings, court listings).

Completeness1/5

The single search tool covers only basic search by name, case number, or state. Missing CRUD operations, detailed case retrieval, and other essential functionalities for the domain.

Available Tools

1 tool
search_court_recordsA
Read-only
Inspect

Search public court records database by individual name, case number, or state jurisdiction. Returns case details including parties involved, case type (civil/criminal), filing date, judgment, and docket number. Use for background checks, legal research, or case tracking. Limited to public records.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoFull name or partial name of person involved in case (e.g. 'John Smith', 'Jane Doe')
stateNoU.S. state or jurisdiction for search (e.g. 'CA', 'NY', 'Texas')
case_numberNoCase identifier/docket number if known (e.g. '2023-CV-001234')
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds value by detailing return fields (parties, case type, filing date, judgment, docket number) and stating the 'Limited to public records' constraint, which gives agents a realistic expectation.

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?

The description is four concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action and parameters, detailing the output, suggesting use cases, and noting a limitation. No wasted words.

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 compensates by listing expected return fields. It also covers usage and constraints. Could be slightly richer (e.g., result volume or ordering), but it's sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke.

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 each parameter is fully described in the schema itself. The description only summarizes the parameters (name, state, case_number) without adding new semantic depth, meeting the baseline.

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 the tool's purpose: searching public court records by name, case number, or state jurisdiction. It specifies the resource ('public court records database') and the search parameters, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases: background checks, legal research, case tracking. While it doesn't state when not to use or list alternatives, the absence of sibling tools reduces the need for exclusions.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources