attorney_at_closing_usUNITED STATES. Whether a real estate attorney is required at closing in a state (required, partly required, customary, not required), the statute, bar opinion or court ruling behind it, and who usually conducts closings (attorney, title or escrow company).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | US state: any of the 50 states, by name or two-letter code (e.g. "Texas", "TX"). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already grant readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world status, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it specifies the answer taxonomy, the evidentiary basis returned (statute, bar opinion, court ruling), and the practical detail of who conducts closings.
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?
A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the jurisdiction and the core question. Every clause carries information (classification, legal source, practitioner), though the parenthetical enumerations make it slightly heavy.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by describing what comes back: the requirement level, the underlying legal authority, and who typically conducts the closing. An agent has enough to know the answer shape; only pagination/format detail is absent, which is irrelevant for a single-state lookup.
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?
Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including accepted formats (name or two-letter code). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific question-resource pair (attorney requirement at closing) scoped precisely to the United States and broken down by state. The enumerated answer categories (required / partly required / customary / not required) make it trivially distinguishable from siblings like closing_costs_us or title_insurance_us.
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 makes clear what domain this lookup covers (US closing attorney requirements by state), which implies when it applies, but it never names an alternative tool or states a when-not condition. No prerequisite or routing guidance is given despite several adjacent US closing tools in the sibling list.
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.