Paginated Hong Kong court cases. Filter by case_prefix (e.g. hccl, facv), year, category, titleContains, partiesContains (English or Chinese party name substring). Returns { data, total, page, limit }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| year | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| case_prefix | No | ||
| titleContains | No | ||
| partiesContains | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds behavioral value by specifying pagination and the response object shape ({data, total, page, limit}), plus substring semantics for partiesContains. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single well-structured sentence followed by filter list and return shape, with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core function and immediately actionable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description provides essential return-value information. It covers major filters and pagination, but omits details like filtering combination logic (AND/OR) and sorting, which are not critical for a straightforward list endpoint. Given annotations and sibling context, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It explains case_prefix with examples, year, category, titleContains, and partiesContains (English or Chinese substring), but does not explicitly define page and limit, though 'paginated' and the response shape imply their role. Defaults are left to schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function as providing paginated Hong Kong court cases, with actionable filters for case_prefix, year, category, titleContains, and partiesContains. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (Hk_get_case, Hk_get_document) by being a list/search operation rather than a single-case or document retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys a clear use case for listing and filtering court cases but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of the sibling tools. It provides filter semantics and a return shape, establishing context for paginated queries, but lacks direct exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.