get_caseFull record for a case number, including staff recommendation, Planning Commission recommendation, decision, parcels and a deep link to the source record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_number | Yes | e.g. "REZ2025-00025" | |
| jurisdiction | No | Disambiguates if the number exists in more than one jurisdiction |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It lists the contents of the returned record (staff recommendation, decision, parcels, deep link), which is helpful, but it doesn't mention potential errors, behavior for missing case numbers, access permissions, or pagination. It provides a partial picture but not exhaustive behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then lists the specific record contents. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's output, with no unnecessary padding.
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?
The description is adequately complete for a simple retrieval tool: it names the key fields returned and the schema fully documents parameters. While it doesn't mention error handling or jurisdiction-related behavior, these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage. The absence of an output schema is somewhat compensated by the explicit list of returned contents.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including an example for case_number and the disambiguation purpose for jurisdiction. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('full record for a case number'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on retrieving a complete record by case number, while search_cases is for finding cases and get_code_section for code sections.
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?
The description implies usage when you have a known case number and want the full record, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_cases or mention when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, so the guidance is more implied than explicit.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action: retrieving case details, fetching code sections, listing jurisdictions, resolving a specific address/parcel, and searching cases. There is no functional overlap, and the descriptions clearly separate their purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_case, get_code_section, list_jurisdictions, resolve_jurisdiction, search_cases. The naming is uniform and follows standard REST-like conventions.
Five tools is well-scoped for a land-use index server. Each tool covers a core function without redundancy, and the count is neither too sparse nor too heavy for the domain.
The tool set covers the essential workflows: finding cases, retrieving case details, looking up code sections, and determining jurisdiction. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for parcel geometry or zoning map), but the core functionality is complete.