Resolve a reporter citation (e.g. '347 U.S. 483', '347 U. S. 483', '384 U.S. 436') to the case it identifies. Matches official and parallel citations. Returns the case metadata including its CAP id for use with caselaw_opinion_text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| citation | Yes | A reporter citation, e.g. '347 U.S. 483'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add value beyond that. It adds useful behavioral detail: it matches official and parallel citations, tolerates citation variants like '347 U. S. 483', and returns metadata including the CAP id. No contradiction 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?
Two sentences carry the full necessary meaning: purpose, input examples, matching behavior, output, and downstream use. There is no filler, and the core action is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it says what input is expected, what matching behavior occurs, what the return value contains, and how the result connects to caselaw_opinion_text. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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?
The schema already documents the single citation parameter with an example, and coverage is 100%. The description enriches the parameter meaning by providing additional format examples and explicitly stating that official and parallel citations are matched, which helps the agent understand acceptable inputs.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a reporter citation ... to the case it identifies.' It also clarifies that it matches official and parallel citations and returns metadata with a CAP id. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like court_citation_resolver or caselaw_search, though the downstream link to caselaw_opinion_text helps.
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 clearly implies the intended use case: when an agent has a reporter citation and needs the case identity and CAP id for further caselaw operations. It names the downstream sibling caselaw_opinion_text but does not state when-not-to-use alternatives such as caselaw_search, so it stops short of a 5.
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.