get_related_authoritiesFind authorities related via shared citation patterns.
Unlike co_cited (what is cited alongside this case), related finds other
cases that cite similar sets of authorities even when they do not cite each
other directly.
Args:
authority_id: Canonical ID of the authority
limit: Max results (default 20)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| authority_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description explains the conceptual behavior of shared citation patterns, but adds no operational details such as pagination, result ordering, or practical limits beyond the parameter default.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides a useful contrast. The Args block repeats schema fields, but that repetition is justified by the lack of schema descriptions and remains brief.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Given the read-only annotations and two-parameter schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could better situate the tool among its actual siblings.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by documenting both parameters: authority_id as the canonical ID and limit as the maximum number of results with a default of 20.
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 states a specific verb and resource: find authorities related through shared citation patterns. It explains the concept clearly and contrasts it with co_cited, though it does not distinguish itself from the actual sibling tools get_citation_network or get_citation_subgraph.
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?
It gives explicit usage guidance by contrasting with co_cited: use this when looking for cases that cite similar sets of authorities rather than cases cited alongside each other. However, it does not mention the related sibling tools available in this toolset.
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.