Skip to main content
Glama

California Slip & Fall Evidence Checker | JSM Injury Firm

by io.github.janoliverautomation-stack
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Server Details

Not sure what to do after a slip and fall in California? Use this free evidence checker to find out

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Uptime
100.0% over 21 days
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP · MCP 2024-11-05
URL

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool exposed, there is no other tool to confuse it with. The single tool has a clearly defined purpose: returning an educational slip-and-fall evidence checklist.

Naming Consistency5/5

The tool name follows a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern and is descriptive. While one tool does not establish a broad pattern, there is no naming inconsistency or style mixing.

Tool Count4/5

One tool is slightly below the typical 3-15 range, but it is appropriate for a tightly scoped, single-purpose evidence checker rather than a trivial or generic utility. The narrow domain explains the minimal surface.

Completeness5/5

The tool covers the full stated purpose: it takes relevant input about the fall, injuries, preserved evidence, and communications, then outputs urgency, evidence to preserve, actions to avoid, and attorney questions. There are no obvious missing operations within the server's declared scope.

Available Tools

1 tool
check_slip_fall_evidenceCalifornia Slip & Fall Evidence CheckerAInspect

Educational decision-support tool for people injured in a slip and fall in California. Given answers describing how a fall happened, injuries, evidence already preserved, and any insurance or property-owner communications, it returns a structured, educational evidence-preservation checklist: an urgency level, the specific evidence to preserve, what to avoid, and questions worth asking an attorney. SAFEGUARDS: Informational/educational ONLY — NOT legal advice. It does NOT assess liability or fault, does NOT determine claim validity, does NOT calculate case value, does NOT estimate probability of winning, does NOT guarantee outcomes, and does NOT create an attorney-client relationship. Any response must be conveyed to the end user as educational information only.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timingNoHow long ago the incident occurred, e.g. within_24h, within_48h, within_week, within_2weeks, within_month, within_3months, within_6months, over_6months.
fallTypeNoHow the fall happened, e.g. slip_wet_floor, trip_uneven, fell_stairs, fell_parking, fell_sidewalk, fell_store, fell_apartment, fell_restaurant, fell_pool, fell_elevator, other.
witnessesNoWitness status, e.g. yes_contact, yes_no_contact, no_witnesses.
medicalCareNoMedical care status, e.g. yes_treated, no_cant_afford, no_not_yet.
warningSignNoWhether a warning sign was present, e.g. yes_adequate, yes_inadequate, no_sign.
publicPrivateNoWhether the fall was on public/government property or private property. Public property falls involve shorter government-claim deadlines in California.
hazardDurationNoHow long the hazard likely existed, e.g. minutes, hours, days, weeks_months, permanent.
incidentReportNoWhether an incident report was created, e.g. yes, no, refused.
injurySymptomsNoList of injury symptoms, e.g. fracture, head_injury, surgery_recommended, back_injury, nerve_damage, bruising, sprain.
rentalPropertyNoWhether the fall involved a rental/landlord property, e.g. yes_tenant, yes_visitor, no.
staffAwarenessNoWhether staff/owner were aware of the hazard, e.g. yes_definitely, told_them, should_have, no.
priorComplaintsNoWhether prior complaints about the hazard were made, e.g. yes_written, yes_verbal, others_complained, none.
settlementOfferNoSettlement offer status, e.g. yes_accepted, yes_considering, yes_declined, none.
signedDocumentsNoWhether any insurance/property documents were signed, e.g. yes, no.
faultQuestioningNoWhether fault has been questioned, e.g. yes_insurance, yes_both, no.
recurringProblemNoWhether the hazard was a recurring problem, e.g. yes, heard, no.
recordedStatementNoInsurance recorded-statement status, e.g. yes_gave, asked_not_given, not_asked.
surveillanceVideoNoWhether surveillance cameras may exist, e.g. yes_cameras, maybe, no_cameras.
videoPreservationNoStatus of any request to preserve video, e.g. no_not_yet, requested, refused, preserved.
symptomProgressionNoHow symptoms are progressing, e.g. worse, new_symptoms, same, improving.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool does NOT assess liability, determine claim validity, calculate case value, estimate win probability, guarantee outcomes, or create an attorney-client relationship, and requires that responses be conveyed as educational information only. This is unusually complete behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is well-organized: purpose first, concrete output next, and safeguards last. The SAFEGUARDS section is long but warranted given the legal-adjacent domain and the need to prevent misuse. Every sentence adds necessary meaning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with 20 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no siblings, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies inputs, output structure, jurisdictional scope, and explicit non-goals, giving an agent enough context to invoke the tool and interpret its educational-only response correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description groups the 20 inputs into broad categories ('how a fall happened, injuries, evidence already preserved, and any insurance or property-owner communications'), which provides useful context, but it does not add individual detail beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('returns'), resource ('educational evidence-preservation checklist for California slip and fall'), and exactly what the output contains: urgency level, evidence to preserve, what to avoid, and questions for an attorney. It is clearly differentiated from generic legal tools by its explicit educational scope.

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?

The description clearly identifies the target user and scenario: people injured in a slip and fall in California who want an educational evidence-preservation checklist. It does not name alternatives, but there are no sibling tools, and the contextual framing plus 'educational only' boundary sufficiently implies when it should and should not be used.

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.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedcheck_slip_fall_evidence

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

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