Hk_get_case
Read-only
A single Hong Kong court case by id (format: caseNo/year, e.g. 12345/2024). Returns { data } with parties and files (null if not found).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Hong Kong CourtDB
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only behavior. Description adds return shape ({ data } with parties, files) and null-if-not-found behavior, which is valuable context beyond annotations.
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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and provide essential details without any wasted words.
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?
For a simple 1-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers id format, return structure, and null behavior, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 provides no description for 'id', but the tool description fully compensates by specifying the format (caseNo/year) and an example, making the parameter semantics complete.
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?
Description clearly states 'A single Hong Kong court case by id' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like Hk_list_cases and Hk_get_document. The format and example further clarify scope.
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 implies usage when a specific case id is known, providing format and example. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but context makes the use case clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: listing cases with filters, retrieving case details by ID, and retrieving judgment text by file ID. There is no overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the consistent pattern 'Hk_<verb>_<noun>', with 'get' for single-item retrieval and 'list' for paginated search. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With exactly 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for a read-only court database. Each tool is essential and covers a distinct step in the workflow without redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The tools provide the core workflow of searching cases, retrieving case metadata, and accessing judgment text. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to list all documents for a case or filter by judge, but these are not critical for the apparent purpose.