Skip to main content
Glama

Redra

by io.github.sacrosaunt

Search settlements

search_settlements
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search one settlement angle using logical AND keywords and structured status, type, state, proof, and deadline filters. Status defaults to open. Results include source metadata and quality flags.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum records returned, from 1 to 50.
stateNoOptional two-letter US postal abbreviation, such as CA.
statusNoPublic lifecycle filter: open or upcoming. Defaults to open. Upcoming records are not yet claimable and must be presented as a separate watchlist.open
keywordsNoRequired logical-AND terms for specific companies, brands, products, employers, services, or incidents. Use separate queries for alternatives and settlement_type for taxonomy.
deadline_afterNoInclude deadlines on or after this ISO 8601 date.
proof_requiredNoWhether proof is required: yes, no, or unknown.
deadline_beforeNoInclude deadlines on or before this ISO 8601 date.
settlement_typeNoExact settlement taxonomy filter. Prefer this over keywords for type concepts such as data breaches, privacy, refunds, financial fees, or consumer products.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / proof_required / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "yes",
-      "no",
-      "optional",
-      "varies",
-      "unknown"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "yes",
+      "no",
+      "unknown"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / proof_required / description
      Previous value: -"Exact proof requirement: yes, no, optional, varies, or unknown."New value: +"Whether proof is required: yes, no, or unknown."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / proof_required / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "yes",
-      "no",
-      "optional",
-      "unknown"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "yes",
+      "no",
+      "optional",
+      "varies",
+      "unknown"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / proof_required / description
      Previous value: -"Exact proof requirement: yes, no, optional, or unknown."New value: +"Exact proof requirement: yes, no, optional, varies, or unknown."
  3. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / keywords / description
      Previous value: -"Required AND terms for specific companies, brands, products, employers, or incidents. Do not put a settlement-type label here when settlement_type applies. For broad eligibility scans, make multiple separate searches covering plausible aliases, related brands, parent companies, services, purchases, fees, incidents, and eligibility-relevant demographic angles."New value: +"Required logical-AND terms for specific companies, brands, products, employers, services, or incidents. Use separate queries for alternatives and settlement_type for taxonomy."
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"Claim lifecycle: open, closed, payment, unknown, or all. Defaults to open. Use all only when intentionally including non-open lifecycle states."New value: +"Public lifecycle filter: open or upcoming. Defaults to open. Upcoming records are not yet claimable and must be presented as a separate watchlist."
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "open",
-  "closed",
-  "payment",
-  "unknown",
-  "all"
-]New value: +[
+  "open",
+  "upcoming"
+]
  4. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / status / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "open",
-      "closed",
-      "payment",
-      "unknown"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"Claim lifecycle: open, closed, payment, or unknown. Defaults to open. Pass null to include every lifecycle status."New value: +"Claim lifecycle: open, closed, payment, unknown, or all. Defaults to open. Use all only when intentionally including non-open lifecycle states."
    • addedInput schema / properties / status / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "open",
+  "closed",
+  "payment",
+  "unknown",
+  "all"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / status / type
      Added value: +"string"
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description correctly focuses on additional behavior: it reveals the default status filter ('Status defaults to open') and the content of results ('Results include source metadata and quality flags'). These details go beyond the structured annotations and add value for the agent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraints, and every part adds value—scoping (one angle), filter types, default status, and result contents. No fluff or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a search tool with 8 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, filters, default, and result summary. It does not detail response format (covered by output schema) or pagination, but those are not critical for initial selection. It adequately informs an agent about what to expect.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description reinforces the AND semantics for keywords and lists filter categories, but these are already present in the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Required logical-AND terms' for keywords). It adds little new meaning beyond the schema, placing it at the baseline for full coverage.

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 a specific action (search) on a specific resource (settlements) and adds the scoping constraint 'one settlement angle' with logical AND keywords, distinguishing it from the batch sibling search_settlements_batch. The filter categories (status, type, state, proof, deadline) are enumerated, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage via 'one settlement angle' and the keyword parameter description in the schema suggests using separate queries for alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. It lacks direct exclusions or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Redra toolsInspect
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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: dataset metadata, single-record retrieval, batch retrieval, single search, and batch search. No overlapping boundaries or potential for misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_dataset_info, get_settlement, get_settlements, search_settlements, search_settlements_batch). Verbs and noun plurality are used logically and consistently.

Tool Count5/5

With exactly 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its apparent purpose of settlement searching and retrieval. Each tool fills a necessary role without redundancy, making the count ideal.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface fully covers the read-only workflow: dataset-level info, targeted retrieval (single and batch), and search (single and batch). No obvious gaps for the domain, as update/create/delete operations are not implied by the server's purpose.

Resources