Whether a quote appears verbatim in the stored text of a document (after normalizing quotes, dashes, whitespace, and [T]he-style alterations, as the ingestion filter does). Deterministic; use it before relying on a quotation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| quote | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| chars | Yes | ||
| verified | Yes | ||
| occurrences | Yes | ||
| source_field | Yes |
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?
Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses determinism and the normalization rules (quotes, dashes, whitespace, [T]he-style alterations). It does not specify the exact return value (e.g., boolean vs. error), but the core behavior is transparent.
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, focused sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the purpose, normalization details, and determinism in a compact form.
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?
Given the simple two-parameter signature and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential aspects. The return type is implied ('whether'), and the context of use is clear enough for an agent to call it correctly.
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 provides no parameter descriptions, so the tool description must compensate. The names 'id' and 'quote' are reasonably self-explanatory, and the description implies their roles, but the mapping is not explicitly stated. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent.
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: verifying whether a quote appears verbatim in a document's text. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only verification tool, and the normalization details further clarify its exact behavior.
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 explicitly advises using this tool before relying on a quotation, providing a clear usage context. It does not enumerate alternative tools, but the unique purpose makes the appropriate use evident.
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.