Full-text search of court opinions. Returns opinion text snippets, authors, and citations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| court | No | Optional court ID filter. | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-50, default 10). | |
| query | Yes | Search text required. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing the return shape (text snippets, authors, citations) but not search behavior details such as required query, optional filtering, pagination, or limitations. This adds modest context beyond the 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 short sentences with no filler; the core action and primary return fields are front-loaded. Every phrase adds information, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.
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 simple search tool with complete schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description provides a workable overview of output. However, it omits any usage guidance or sibling differentiation, and with no output schema the return-shape sentence is the only behavioral detail. There are clear but non-fatal gaps for an agent selecting among many court/caselaw tools.
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 100%, so the schema documents query, court, and limit clearly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the general full-text search notion, but the complete schema means it does not need to compensate.
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 names the resource (court opinions) and the operation (full-text search), and states the return fields (snippets, authors, citations). It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling search tools like caselaw_search or court_case_search, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., caselaw_search, court_case_search, court_oral_argument_search) or when not to use it. The description only implies a search use case, with no exclusions or alternative routing. This leaves the agent to infer selection criteria.
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.
Several tool clusters overlap heavily—company due-diligence and risk tools (counterparty_risk_score, company_trust_check, entity_dossier, issuer_diligence_dossier, resolve_entity, entity_resolve), carrier vetting tools, sanctions screening tools, and recall tools all have subtle boundary distinctions. While descriptions are detailed, an agent navigating 294 tools will frequently struggle to pick the right one.
Most tools follow a readable snake_case domain-prefix pattern (fdic_, edgar_, sanctions_, congress_), which helps. However, verb placement is inconsistent—search_available_datasets vs cdc_dataset_query, resolve_entity vs entity_resolve—and synonyms like search, lookup, get, detail, fetch, and status are used interchangeably.
294 tools is an extreme number for a single MCP server, far beyond what an agent can reliably hold in context or select from accurately. The presence of tool-group discovery helpers mitigates but does not solve the fundamental scale problem.
The data breadth is genuinely extensive, covering finance, health, legal, real estate, transportation, energy, cyber, education, and many other domains, often with generic query fallbacks. Still, some capabilities are shallow or incomplete—package tracking stops at a link, property tools are demo-only in places, and caselaw coverage is limited—so it is not a fully complete surface.