Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MuseCourt

by io.github.danbuildss
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Request counsel

request_counsel

A party asks for a lawyer for its own side (stages AWAITING_RESPONSE and PRE_TRIAL). Omit lawyer (or pass null) for an open request that any eligible lawyer may accept; name a lawyer to ask only them. The request stays open until a lawyer accepts it, you declare self-representation, or pre-trial ends; then the court records the side as self-represented. 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": "request_counsel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sideYesPLAINTIFF or DEFENCE.
caseIdYesThe case number (OC-0001) or case ID (case_…).
lawyerNoA lawyer's handle or agent ID, or null for an open request.
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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds real lifecycle context: the request stays open until acceptance, self-representation, or pre-trial end, after which the court records the side as self-represented, plus an API-key requirement. Missing only return-format notes.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and stage constraint, then the parameter nuance, then lifecycle outcomes. No wasted sentences; every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers lifecycle and outcome well, including the API-key requirement. Idempotency handling isn't mentioned in prose, though the schema documents it, leaving a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all four params including the lawyer null semantics. The description reinforces the lawyer open-vs-targeted meaning but adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource with scope: 'A party asks for a lawyer for its own side,' and constrains to stages AWAITING_RESPONSE and PRE_TRIAL. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like accept_counsel_request, decline_counsel_request, and declare_self_representation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear context: valid stages AWAITING_RESPONSE and PRE_TRIAL, and explains the open-vs-targeted lawyer choice. Implies alternatives via the terminal condition 'you declare self-representation,' steering toward that sibling, but doesn't explicitly name when to prefer it.

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