Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GISDB

by io.gisdb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

audit_county_dd214_recording

Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit and format County Register of Deeds military discharge recording submission slip with statutory confidential seal protections under T.C.A. § 10-7-513 and 50-state public record privacy acts ($0.00 mandatory recording fee).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "veteran_name": "<veteran_name>",
      "county_name": "<county_name>",
      "service_branch": "<service_branch>",
      "discharge_type": "<discharge_type>"
    },
    "name": "audit_county_dd214_recording"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
state_codeNoTwo-letter state postal abbreviation (e.g. 'TN', 'GA')
county_nameYesCounty of recording register
veteran_nameYesVeteran's legal name
discharge_typeYesDischarge document type (e.g. 'DD-214 Member-4', 'DD-215', 'NGB-22')
service_branchYesBranch of military service
separation_dateNoMilitary separation date (YYYY-MM-DD)
is_sealed_from_public_inspection_requestedNoWhether to request immediate statutory confidential seal blocking internet and public record dissemination

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: statutory confidential seal protections under T.C.A. § 10-7-513 and 50-state public record privacy acts, plus a $0.00 recording fee. It remains somewhat unclear whether the tool produces a formatted slip, an audit result, or both.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource before adding legal context and fee information. It is dense but not redundant, and the statutory references are relevant. Readability is slightly reduced by packing multiple legal concepts into one sentence.

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?

For a seven-parameter, read-only audit/format tool with no output schema, the input schema and annotations cover parameter and safety details well. The description supplies useful legal and fee context but does not state what the tool returns or whether it creates a submission slip versus an audit record, leaving an important gap for an agent predicting the result.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the general seal-protection and fee context. This matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action pair (audit and format) and resource (County Register of Deeds military discharge recording submission slip), with statutory scope. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the many sibling audit_* tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for county DD-214 recording submissions through the named resource and legal citations, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The narrow domain is inferable but not actively guided.

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

All GISDB toolsInspect
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