California Slip & Fall Evidence Checker | JSM Injury Firm

California Slip & Fall Evidence Checker

check_slip_fall_evidence

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`timing`	No	How long ago the incident occurred, e.g. within_24h, within_48h, within_week, within_2weeks, within_month, within_3months, within_6months, over_6months.
`fallType`	No	How 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.
`witnesses`	No	Witness status, e.g. yes_contact, yes_no_contact, no_witnesses.
`medicalCare`	No	Medical care status, e.g. yes_treated, no_cant_afford, no_not_yet.
`warningSign`	No	Whether a warning sign was present, e.g. yes_adequate, yes_inadequate, no_sign.
`publicPrivate`	No	Whether the fall was on public/government property or private property. Public property falls involve shorter government-claim deadlines in California.
`hazardDuration`	No	How long the hazard likely existed, e.g. minutes, hours, days, weeks_months, permanent.
`incidentReport`	No	Whether an incident report was created, e.g. yes, no, refused.
`injurySymptoms`	No	List of injury symptoms, e.g. fracture, head_injury, surgery_recommended, back_injury, nerve_damage, bruising, sprain.
`rentalProperty`	No	Whether the fall involved a rental/landlord property, e.g. yes_tenant, yes_visitor, no.
`staffAwareness`	No	Whether staff/owner were aware of the hazard, e.g. yes_definitely, told_them, should_have, no.
`priorComplaints`	No	Whether prior complaints about the hazard were made, e.g. yes_written, yes_verbal, others_complained, none.
`settlementOffer`	No	Settlement offer status, e.g. yes_accepted, yes_considering, yes_declined, none.
`signedDocuments`	No	Whether any insurance/property documents were signed, e.g. yes, no.
`faultQuestioning`	No	Whether fault has been questioned, e.g. yes_insurance, yes_both, no.
`recurringProblem`	No	Whether the hazard was a recurring problem, e.g. yes, heard, no.
`recordedStatement`	No	Insurance recorded-statement status, e.g. yes_gave, asked_not_given, not_asked.
`surveillanceVideo`	No	Whether surveillance cameras may exist, e.g. yes_cameras, maybe, no_cameras.
`videoPreservation`	No	Status of any request to preserve video, e.g. no_not_yet, requested, refused, preserved.
`symptomProgression`	No	How symptoms are progressing, e.g. worse, new_symptoms, same, improving.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

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.

All California Slip & Fall Evidence Checker | JSM Injury Firm tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

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.

Resources

Need Help?