judges_search
Search federal and state judges.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| court | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Search federal and state judges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| court | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral details such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or result structure. With no annotations, the description does not compensate.
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?
The description is extremely concise at three words, but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is not overly long, but it is incomplete.
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?
With no output schema and minimal description, the tool is underequipped for an agent to use correctly. Key aspects like return format, filtering options, and error behavior are 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no additional meaning for the 'query' or 'court' parameters. The purpose of 'query' is ambiguous (judge name, jurisdiction?).
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 clearly states the tool searches for federal and state judges, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like court_docket or court_opinions. However, it does not specify what information about judges is returned.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.