CaseMagic — Federal Court Case Lookup & Monitor

Draft a CaseMail message for approval

send_case_mail

Write a CaseMail message from a saved case's address and return a link the user opens to review and send it. Use when the user asks you to reply to case correspondence or to write to someone about the case. Nothing is sent by this tool: the message only leaves CaseMagic after the user opens the review link and confirms it, and the link expires. Tell the user that they still have to confirm.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "send_case_mail"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cc`	No	Optional copied addresses.
`to`	Yes	Recipient email addresses.
`body`	Yes	The message body, as plain text.
`subject`	Yes	The subject line.
`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

Name	Required	Description
`sent`	No	Always false: the message is drafted for the user to approve, never sent by this tool.
`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.
`matter_id`	No	The case.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "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"
+    },
+    "sent": {
+      "description": "Always false: the message is drafted for the user to approve, never sent by this tool.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: nothing is sent by the tool, the message only leaves the system after the user opens the review link and confirms, the link expires, and the agent is instructed to tell the user confirmation is still required. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious, safety-relevant behavior annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its return value, then the trigger, then the safety caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

An output schema exists and the description explains what the returned link is for, so return-value documentation is not needed. Draft-only semantics, the confirmation gate, and link expiry are all covered, leaving no gap an agent needs before calling.

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 five parameters are already documented, including matter_id's omission rule. The description only hints at the case-address source and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 ('Write a CaseMail message from a saved case's address') plus the concrete result ('return a link the user opens to review and send it'). This clearly separates it from the read-side sibling get_case_mail, which only retrieves mail.

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 explicit triggering conditions: 'Use when the user asks you to reply to case correspondence or to write to someone about the case.' It does not name the alternative tool (get_case_mail) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the top band.

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?