cases_by_termList the SCOTUS cases for a given term year from Oyez — compact summaries (name, docket, citation, short question, oyez_url). Use to browse a full term. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | SCOTUS term year, e.g. 2022 or 2023. | |
| limit | No | Max cases to return (default 20, max 40). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "term": 2023
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 30,
+ "term": 2022
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. Description adds that it is 'keyless' (no authentication) and that it returns compact summaries. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Three sentences, no fluff. Front-loads the action and then details the output and usage. Every sentence adds value.
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?
For a simple listing tool with well-defined input schema, the description is almost complete. It explains what is returned and the source. Minor omission: default limit is not mentioned in description but is in schema.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. Description reinforces the term parameter by linking it to the output, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('list SCOTUS cases'), specifies the grouping (by term year), source (Oyez), and output format (compact summaries with fields). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_cases and get_case by being a term-based listing 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?
Description explicitly says 'Use to browse a full term', giving clear context. It does not mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient. Could be improved by referencing alternatives like search_cases for filtered queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.