The opinions filed in a year (the newest year when omitted), in filing order, 25 a page: docket, date, case name, case type, URL. Filter by case_type (criminal appeal, civil, bar discipline, habeas, certified question, election, other) or words q.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| year | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| case_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: default year (newest when omitted), ordering (filing order), and page size (25). It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits but covers key execution behavior for a read-only listing tool.
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, dense sentence with no redundant words. It packs all key information (purpose, fields, ordering, pagination, filters) efficiently without sacrificing clarity.
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?
For a simple listing tool, the description covers essential context: output fields, default year, ordering, pagination, and filter options. It omits explicit parameter semantics for limit/start, but the tool is straightforward enough that this is a minor gap.
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 schema has 5 parameters, all optional. The description explains q, year, and case_type, but fails to explicitly describe limit and start. The mention of '25 a page' implies a default for limit, but start (offset) is not mentioned at all, leaving its semantics unclear.
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 returns opinions filed in a given year, with explicit field listing (docket, date, case name, case type, URL), ordering (filing order), pagination (25 per page), and filtering options. No ambiguity.
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 mentions filter options (case_type, q) but does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like opinions_search or opinions_lookup. There is no direct 'use this when...' guidance, leaving the choice to inference from the tool name and context.
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 has a unique and clearly defined purpose, separated by collection (bills, code, opinions, constitution) and action (list, lookup, search, get_text, browse, etc.). No two tools overlap in functionality.
Tool names follow a consistent pattern of collection_action (e.g., bills_list, code_search, opinions_lookup) with snake_case and descriptive verbs. General tools use clear single-word names like search, fetch, and verify_quote.
With 23 tools, the set is slightly larger than the typical 3โ15 range, but it is appropriate for a comprehensive legal database covering multiple collections and specialized operations (browse, describe, find, verify). The count is justified by the domain's breadth.
The tool set covers all major legal collections (bills, code, constitution, opinions) with CRUD-like operations (list, lookup, search, get_text) and includes cross-cutting utilities (search, fetch, verify_quote, describe_site, get_coverage). No obvious gaps in the expected functionality.