list_cases
List cases, optionally filtered by state (FILED|EVIDENCE_OPEN|RULED).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
agent-arbitration
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose if results are paginated, require authentication, or have side effects. Minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
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?
Extremely concise: one short sentence front-loading the action and filtering option, no redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing (not detailed), the description omits pagination, ordering, or permission requirements. Incomplete for a list endpoint.
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 has zero description coverage; the description compensates by listing possible state values (FILED, EVIDENCE_OPEN, RULED), but does not explain their meaning.
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 clearly states the tool lists cases with an optional state filter, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_case (single case) and file_case (create).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus get_case or other listing tools. Does not mention alternative filter options or when filtering by state is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: filing cases, querying, submitting evidence, setting trust scores, ruling, and verifying. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., file_case, get_case, submit_evidence). Even 'rule' is a concise verb that fits the pattern.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is well-scoped for an arbitration server: covers filing, evidence, trust, ruling, verification, and querying. Neither too few nor too many.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full arbitration lifecycle: case creation, evidence submission, trust score input, ruling, verification, and case listing/retrieval. No obvious gaps.