Skip to main content
Glama

Find and rank lawyers for a legal matter

find_attorneys

Find licensed lawyers for a matter and rank them by practice-area fit, location, years licensed, timing, price and preferences, with plain-language reasons, data sources and gaps. Returns up to 5 by default, or an honest no-match. Not legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
zipNo5-digit ZIP code, only if the user agreed to share it
cityNo
courtNo
limitNo
stateNoUS state, two-letter code or name, e.g. CA or California
countyNo
urgencyNo
categoryNo
languagesNo
remote_okNoUser is willing to work with a lawyer remotely (phone or video) anywhere in the state
budget_maxNoTotal budget the user mentioned, in US dollars
budget_minNo
prioritiesNoWhat matters most, in order. Shifts ranking weights.
client_sideNoWhich side the user is on. ALCBar has no record of which side lawyers usually represent, so results carry a warning to ask.
descriptionNoShort description of the legal need in the user's words. Used only to pick a practice area; not stored.
matter_typeNo
communicationNo
deadline_dateNoA deadline the USER reported (hearing, filing, response). ALCBar does not verify or calculate deadlines.
deadline_typeNo
practice_areaNoPractice area, e.g. 'Landlord-Tenant Law', 'Family Law', 'Criminal Law'
service_neededNo
consultation_byNoLatest date the user wants a first consultation
procedural_stageNo
subpractice_areaNo
attribution_tokenNoSigned campaign/partner token issued by ALCBar, if the user arrived through a partner link
language_requiredNoTrue if the language is essential, not just preferred
preference_set_idNoSaved criteria from update_matching_preferences
billing_preferenceNo
min_years_licensedNo
accessibility_needsNo
payment_plan_neededNo
exclude_attorney_idsNo
max_consultation_feeNo0 means the user wants a free first consultation
reduced_fee_eligibleNoUser may qualify for pro bono, legal aid or reduced fees
representation_start_byNoDate as YYYY-MM-DD
include_unconfirmed_practice_areaNoAlso include licensed lawyers whose practice areas are not on record (labeled clearly)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false and idempotent=false, but the description clarifies that it returns ranked results with reasons, sources, gaps, and is not legal advice. It adds honest transparency about data limitations, which is valuable 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and key outputs. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the large parameter set and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the ranking logic and result content, but omits parameter usage, which is critical for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 47%, and the description does not mention any parameters. With 36 parameters, many undocumented, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap. Only 'limit' is indirectly referenced.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('licensed lawyers') and states the ranking dimensions. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like compare_attorneys and get_attorney_profile, which are follow-up rather than discovery tools.

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?

Implies this is the entry point for matching, but does not explicitly say when to use it over get_matching_requirements or update_matching_preferences. The 'no-match' behavior and 5-result default are clear usage details.

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.

Resources