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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says which service is queried. It does not disclose pagination behavior, whether an API token/auth is required for CourtListener, rate limits, what fields are returned, or whether this searches full text versus case metadata.
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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the Args list is compact. Given the 0% schema coverage, enumerating the four parameters earns its place rather than being pure repetition of structured data.
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?
For a four-parameter search with one required field, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers inputs well but leaves the result shape, auth needs, and result-volume behavior unstated. It is the minimum viable level for this complexity.
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, and it largely does: it explains party_name, gives concrete court id examples ('nyed', 'txsd'), specifies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), and states the limit range and default (1-50, default 25). These are meaningful additions beyond the bare schema types.
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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Search federal court cases') and names the data source (CourtListener/RECAP), which clearly separates it from the sibling tools that deal with companies, SEC filings, licenses, and NPI lookups. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the domain is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The Args block only documents parameters, not selection conditions.
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.