Search federal court cases via CourtListener (RECAP).
Args: party_name: Plaintiff or defendant name. court: CourtListener court id (e.g. 'nyed', 'txsd'). date_from: Earliest filing date (YYYY-MM-DD). limit: Max results (1-50, default 25).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| court | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| party_name | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists parameters without mentioning read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or result format. This is insufficient.
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 concise with a clear parameter list structure. Every sentence provides value, though it could be slightly more compact by integrating the purpose line with the parameter list.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context, error handling, or return value expectations. It is minimally adequate.
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%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'CourtListener court id' for court, 'YYYY-MM-DD' format for date_from, and range '1-50' for limit). This compensates well for the schema gap.
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 it searches federal court cases via CourtListener (RECAP). This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcp_search_companies or mcp_search_licenses.
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 provides parameter hints but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. Usage is implied from the name, but no exclusions are stated.
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 targets a distinct public records source (company, SEC, UCC, spending, NPI, courts, licenses) with clear differentiation between search and retrieval operations. Minimal overlap and no ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'mcp_verb_noun' pattern using get, lookup, search, and verify. No mixed conventions or irregular naming.
10 tools cover a broad range of public records domains without being overwhelming. Each tool earns its place by targeting a specific source or operation.
The set covers many common public records, but mcp_get_ucc_filings is a roadmap stub returning not_implemented, which is a significant functional gap. Missing sources like property or criminal records are expected, but the non-functional tool hurts completeness.