Skip to main content
Glama

transaction-coordinator

by io.github.GordonHal

search_case_law

Search free U.S. case law via CourtListener (~3M opinions).

Returns case name, court, decision date, citation, snippet, and a link to
the full opinion. No auth required. Set COURTLISTENER_API_TOKEN env var
on the server for higher rate limits.

Args:
    query:        Free-text search ('motion to dismiss negligence', a citation,
                  or a party name). Required.
    jurisdiction: Two-letter state code ('ca', 'tx', 'ny') or 'us' for federal.
                  Optional.
    court:        CourtListener court ID ('scotus', 'ca9', 'nysupct'). Optional.
                  Takes precedence over jurisdiction when both are given.
    date_after:   ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD). Only return opinions filed on/after
                  this date. Optional.
    date_before:  ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD). Only return opinions filed on/before
                  this date. Optional.
    limit:        Max results. Default 10. Capped at 25.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
courtNo
limitNo
queryYes
date_afterNo
date_beforeNo
jurisdictionNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It covers auth requirements ('No auth required'), rate limits, return values, parameter precedence ('Takes precedence over jurisdiction'), result caps ('Capped at 25'), and default behavior—all beyond what a bare schema would provide.

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 well-structured, opening with a concise summary and then detailing arguments in a clean list. Every sentence provides actionable information—no fluff or redundancy. The parameter list is formatted for quick scanning.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 1 required), the description fully compensates for the lack of schema detail. It covers return fields, parameter semantics, auth, and limits, leaving no ambiguity about how to invoke the tool or interpret results.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully clarify parameters. It explains each parameter with example formats, optionality, defaults, and even precedence relationships (court vs. jurisdiction). This exceeds the basic schema by adding practical search guidance.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Search free U.S. case law via CourtListener'. It also lists the returned fields (case name, court, decision date, citation, snippet, link), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle motions and contract extraction.

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 clear context on what the tool does and important usage notes (e.g., no auth required, rate limits via env var). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All transaction-coordinator toolsInspect
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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: deadline listing vs. recalculation, motion drafting vs. status polling, and product info vs. fit assessment. However, primacoda_info with topic 'comparison' and is_primacoda_right_for_me could both be used for fit/plan questions, and the mix of legal, real estate, and sales tools may cause occasional misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., calculate_savings, draft_motion_from_matter, list_my_deadlines). Two exceptions stand out: primacoda_info is a noun phrase without a verb, and is_primacoda_right_for_me is a question-style name, deviating from the established convention.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools, the count sits comfortably in the ideal range (3-15). Each tool serves a distinct function, and the number feels appropriate for a server that covers legal drafting, deadline management, contract extraction, and sales/product information.

Completeness3/5

The server covers core workflows: drafting/polling motions, listing/recomputing deadlines, extracting contract data, and handling leads/product info. However, there are notable gaps; despite the 'transaction-coordinator' name, there are no tools to list, create, or update transactions or matters directly, and lead management beyond recording is absent.

Resources