CaseMagic — Federal Court Case Lookup & Monitor

Read CaseMail correspondence

get_case_mail

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the correspondence delivered to a saved case's CaseMail address: messages from opposing counsel, the court, clients or anyone else the user gave the address to, with their attachments. Use when the user asks what someone emailed them about the case, what correspondence has arrived, or to find a message about a particular subject. It also surfaces any dates those messages state — "produce documents by 10/14" — quoted with the message it came from and its sender, so a deadline that arrives by email rather than on the docket is not missed; those dates are the sender's words, not an order of the court. This is case correspondence, not the user's own inbox.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`after`	No	An ISO-8601 timestamp; only messages received after it are returned.
`limit`	No	How many messages to return. Defaults to 20.
`query`	No	Plain text matched against sender, subject and body.
`matter_id`	No	The CaseMagic matter id, as returned by create_case_passport or shown in an earlier result. Omit it when the account follows exactly one case and that is the one meant.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Present only when the call failed: a code, a message and, where there is one, an action such as a link to give the user.
`messages`	No	CaseMail messages.
`matter_id`	No	The case.
`deadlines_note`	No	What those dates are.
`deadlines_stated_in_mail`	No	Dates quoted from correspondence, each with its sender.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "deadlines_note": {
+      "description": "What those dates are.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "deadlines_stated_in_mail": {
+      "description": "Dates quoted from correspondence, each with its sender.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Present only when the call failed: a code, a message and, where there is one, an action such as a link to give the user.",
+      "properties": {
+        "code": {
+          "description": "Machine-readable error code, for example CASE_NOT_FOUND or MULTIPLE_CASES_FOUND.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "description": "What went wrong, in a sentence.",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "matter_id": {
+      "description": "The case.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "messages": {
+      "description": "CaseMail messages.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavior: it surfaces sender-stated dates quoted with their message and sender, and clarifies those dates are the sender's words rather than a court order. That is useful non-obvious context beyond the annotations, though pagination/windowing behavior is still left to the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then triggers, then the date-surfacing nuance, with no filler. The date sentence is long and slightly over-explained, but it carries genuinely useful information rather than padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers scope, sender types, usage triggers, the date-extraction behavior with its legal caveat, and the inbox exclusion. Nothing an agent needs to select and call it correctly is missing.

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 all four parameters (after, limit, query, matter_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the correspondence delivered to a saved case's CaseMail address') and enumerates the sender types and attachments returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the docket and from the user's own inbox, so an agent can place it against siblings like get_case_docket and send_case_mail without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete invocation triggers ('when the user asks what someone emailed them about the case, what correspondence has arrived, or to find a message about a particular subject') plus an exclusion ('not the user's own inbox'). It does not name the sibling tools an agent might confuse it with (e.g. get_case_docket, send_case_mail), so it stops short of explicit alternative routing.

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

All CaseMagic — Federal Court Case Lookup & Monitor tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?