California Dog Bite Evidence Checklist | JSM Injury Firm
Server Details
Bitten or injured by a dog in California? Use this private checklist to understand what evidence to
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
1 toolcheck_dog_bite_evidenceAInspect
California Dog Bite Evidence Checklist. Given a plain-language description of a dog bite or animal attack in California (how it happened, who was injured, when/where, dog-owner and insurance situation, injuries and medical care, and what evidence exists), returns a personalized, educational checklist: evidence to preserve now, what to avoid, plain-language questions that may be worth attorney review, and an educational urgency indicator. Educational evidence-preservation support only. This tool does NOT provide legal advice, does NOT assess liability or fault, does NOT determine whether you have a valid claim or case, does NOT estimate case value, does NOT predict the probability of winning, and does NOT guarantee compensation or any legal outcome. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. Only an attorney can evaluate the facts of your specific situation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| working | No | Whether the user was working (e.g. delivery/gig work) when injured, e.g. "Yes, delivering packages", "No", "Not sure". | |
| injuries | No | Injuries present, e.g. "Facial injury", "Scarring or disfigurement", "Nerve damage/numbness", "Infection concern", "Emotional trauma/fear/anxiety". | |
| who_injured | No | Who was injured, e.g. "Me", "My child", "Me and my child were injured", "A delivery worker / employee", "Multiple people were injured". | |
| medical_care | No | Medical care received, e.g. "Emergency room", "Urgent care", "Primary doctor", "None yet". | |
| incident_type | No | Type of incident, e.g. "Dog bite that broke the skin", "Dog knocked me down", "Dog attacked my child", "Dog attacked my pet and I was also injured", "Other animal attack". | |
| when_happened | No | When it happened, e.g. "Today", "Yesterday", "Within the last 7 days", "Within the last 30 days", "1–6 months ago", "6–24 months ago", "More than 2 years ago", "Not sure". | |
| insurance_info | No | Dog-owner insurance status, e.g. "Yes", "No", "They said they have no insurance", "They are avoiding me", "They offered to pay cash", "I have not asked yet". | |
| video_evidence | No | Possible video/camera evidence sources, e.g. "Ring/doorbell camera", "Business security camera", "Bystander phone video", "Not sure". | |
| where_happened | No | Where it happened, e.g. "Neighbor's home", "Apartment complex", "Delivery route", "Public sidewalk or street". | |
| signed_anything | No | Whether the user signed or was asked to sign anything, e.g. "Yes", "I was asked to sign", "No". | |
| property_involved | No | Whether the incident happened at a property controlled by someone other than the dog owner (landlord, apartment, business). | |
| recorded_statement | No | Recorded statement status, e.g. "Yes", "They asked but I have not done it", "No". | |
| settlement_offered | No | Settlement offer status, e.g. "Yes", "Insurance offer", "Informal cash offer from owner", "No". | |
| insurance_contacted | No | Whether an insurance adjuster has contacted the user, e.g. "Yes", "No", "Not sure". |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden, and it does this well. It discloses exactly what the tool returns (evidence to preserve, what to avoid, attorney-review questions, urgency indicator), and it is unusually explicit about what it will not do: no legal advice, no liability/fault assessment, no claim evaluation, no compensation guarantee, no attorney-client relationship. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's boundaries and limitations.
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 longer than average but front-loads the core function immediately before moving into necessary legal disclaimers. Every sentence adds value: the first sentence defines the tool, the middle clarifies the output components, and the closing sentences set expectations and limitations. The repetition of 'educational' and the long disclaimer list could be tightened slightly, but it is still well structured and not padded.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and its educational boundaries. It covers the main inputs at a high level and the output components explicitly. Given the 14 schematized parameters, the absence of sibling tools, and the legal context, the description gives an agent enough context to select and use the tool appropriately. A slightly more concrete description of the checklist format or urgency indicator behavior would make it fully complete.
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?
The input schema already documents all 14 parameters with example values and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description broadly summarizes the input categories ('how it happened, who was injured, when/where, dog-owner and insurance situation, injuries and medical care, and what evidence exists'), but it does not add detail beyond the schema. This is acceptable because the schema is already rich enough for an agent to invoke parameters correctly.
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 opens with a clear noun phrase 'California Dog Bite Evidence Checklist' and then states that, given a plain-language description of the incident, it returns a personalized educational checklist. The verb is specific ('returns'), the resource is explicit (a checklist), and the scope—California dog bites/animal attacks—is unambiguous. Even without sibling tools, the purpose is fully distinguishable from any general legal or medical tool.
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?
The description clearly frames when this tool is appropriate: when a user needs educational evidence-preservation support for a California dog bite or animal attack. It also explicitly states when it should not be relied upon—it does not provide legal advice, assess liability, estimate case value, predict outcomes, or create an attorney-client relationship. It could have been even more direct with a phrase like 'Use when the user wants evidence-preservation guidance rather than legal analysis,' but the intended usage is well implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- First observed
check_dog_bite_evidence
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Not sure what to do after a slip and fall in California? Use this free evidence checker to find out
11California criminal-justice accountability: DAs, defenders, judges, officers, CJP, POST.
Diagnose common dog behaviour problems, get program pricing, and submit the free assessment.
State document requirements for all 50 US states, an after-a-loss checklist, and a planning gap chec
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceAssesses event safety by providing prioritized actions, documentation needs, risk factors, and applicable regulations based on event conditions such as venue, crowd size, and setup.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceThe checklist you wish someone had given you before launch.1,83811MIT

KnowJudgesofficial
FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceFree, source-linked research on U.S. judges and courts, including judicial profiles, biographies, courtroom rules, AI-abuse cases, and recent rule changes.-- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceAnalyzes contracts for safety score and risk assessment, identifying dangerous clauses and dispute patterns, with recommendations for improvements.-
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
There is only one tool in this server, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another tool. Its purpose is clearly and distinctly stated.
The single tool uses a clear verb_noun snake_case naming convention. With only one tool, there is no inconsistency or mixed pattern to penalize.
One tool is borderline for a server, though the narrow, specific purpose of a dog bite evidence checklist makes a single tool defensible. It feels slightly thin as a standalone MCP server but is not excessive or trivial.
For the stated domain of generating a personalized California dog bite evidence checklist, the tool covers evidence preservation, what to avoid, attorney-review questions, and urgency. The explicitly excluded legal topics are out of scope, so no critical capability is missing.