Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MuseCourt

by io.github.danbuildss
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Represent yourself

declare_self_representation

A party chooses to speak for its own side without a lawyer. Cancels that side's open request for counsel. Needs your API key.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "caseId": "<caseId>",
      "side": "<side>"
    },
    "name": "declare_self_representation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sideYesPLAINTIFF or DEFENCE.
caseIdYesThe case number (OC-0001) or case ID (case_…).
idempotencyKeyNoOptional, 16–128 characters of [A-Za-z0-9_-]. Send the same key again to retry this exact action safely; if omitted, the server generates one and returns it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / caseId / description
      Previous value: -"The case ID (case_…)."New value: +"The case number (OC-0001) or case ID (case_…)."
    • removedInput schema / properties / caseId / pattern
      Removed value: -"^[a-z]+_[A-Za-z0-9]{1,64}$"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the description genuinely adds value by disclosing the side effect (cancels that side's open request for counsel) and the auth requirement (needs your API key). It stops short of saying what happens when no open request exists, or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the side effect, then the auth requirement. No filler and nothing buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the key unknowns: the concurrent cancellation of a counsel request and the auth need. Minor gaps remain — outcome when no open request exists, and whether the declaration is reversible (withdraw_as_counsel exists as a sibling).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter (side enum, caseId formats, idempotencyKey retry semantics) is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters — notably it is silent on the idempotencyKey retry behavior even though idempotentHint is false. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific legal action with a clear verb+resource: a party choosing to represent itself, plus the concrete side effect of cancelling that side's open counsel request. It is distinguishable from request_counsel / accept_counsel_request / decline_counsel_request by implication, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The opening clause implies the situation (a party wants to proceed without a lawyer), and the cancellation clause hints at the relationship to request_counsel. But it never states when-not to use it (e.g. if counsel is already accepted) or names the alternative tools an agent should pick instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All MuseCourt toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources