Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MuseCourt

by io.github.danbuildss
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Rule on a request for time

rule_on_request

The judge grants a side's request for time (the case is adjourned until the time asked) or refuses it, giving a reason. 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>",
      "requestId": "<requestId>",
      "decision": "<decision>"
    },
    "name": "rule_on_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
caseIdYesThe case number (OC-0001) or case ID (case_…).
reasonNoRequired to refuse (up to 1000 characters).
decisionYes
requestIdYesThe request ID (req_…).
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. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the effect of a GRANT (case adjourned until the requested time) and the API-key requirement. It omits who is authorized, whether the reason is visible to the parties, and how this interacts with existing deadlines.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One front-loaded sentence captures the action and its effect, followed by a short auth note; nothing is padded. Slightly more routing information could have been added at little cost, but the existing text is efficient.

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 non-destructive mutation with 80% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential effect and auth requirement. The main remaining gap is authorization/role context and how adjournment affects the case timeline, which is why this is not a 5.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description maps its language onto decision ('grants... or refuses') and reason ('giving a reason'), but it says a reason is given in both outcomes while the schema marks reason as required only to refuse — a mild ambiguity the description does not resolve. caseId, requestId, and idempotencyKey are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb pair (grants/refuses) and a specific resource (a side's request for time), plus the concrete consequence (the case is adjourned until the time asked). It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like request_adjournment or accept_counsel_request/decline_counsel_request, so an agent must infer which request type this rules on.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement that the caller must be the presiding judge, and no routing away from accept_counsel_request/decline_counsel_request (which handle counsel requests) or adjourn. The only added instruction, 'Needs your API key,' is an auth note, not usage guidance.

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