US Legal Case Search
Server Details
US legal case search: court decisions and company litigation history
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_case retrieves a specific case by ID or name, get_company_cases focuses on company-related cases, and search_cases provides general search with filters. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (get_case, get_company_cases, search_cases). No mixing of conventions.
With only 3 tools, the server provides basic functionality but feels limited for the broad domain of US legal case search. While the tools cover core needs, the count is on the lower end of reasonable.
The tools cover retrieving specific cases, company-related cases, and general search. However, missing features like party lookups, court listings, or docket entry retrieval create minor gaps for comprehensive case research.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_caseCInspect
Get detailed information about a specific court case/docket by docket ID or case name search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| court | No | Court ID to narrow case name search | |
| case_name | No | Case name to search for (e.g. "Roe v Wade") | |
| docket_id | No | CourtListener docket ID |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but no details are given about side effects, rate limits, permissions, or what 'detailed information' includes. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand operational boundaries.
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 sentence, which is concise but not structured (no line breaks or sections). It conveys the purpose efficiently but lacks organization that would improve readability for an agent.
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 no output schema and three optional parameters, the description should clarify what 'detailed information' includes or how results are returned. It does not address return format, pagination, or error cases, leaving gaps for an agent to navigate.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value by summarizing the two query methods (docket ID or case name), but does not provide additional examples, constraints, or formatting help. Baseline score of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('court case/docket'), and mentions two methods (by docket ID or case name search). It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_company_cases' or 'search_cases'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description explains how to use it (by docket ID or case name) but gives no context for selecting this over sibling tools or any conditions that make it appropriate or inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_company_casesAInspect
Find all federal court cases involving a specific company. Returns opinions, dockets, and case summaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| court | No | Limit to specific court (e.g. ca9, scotus) | |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 20) | |
| company | Yes | Company name (e.g. "Apple Inc", "Goldman Sachs") | |
| date_after | No | Only cases filed after date (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns opinions, dockets, and summaries but lacks details on pagination, error handling, rate limits, or implications of missing results, leaving behavioral gaps.
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 two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and result, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
With no output schema and only basic input schema, the description provides functional context but lacks detail on result format or edge cases, making it adequate but not comprehensive for complex use.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context beyond schema (e.g., 'federal court cases' clarifies scope but not parameter details). No syntax or format guidance is provided.
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 finds federal court cases for a specific company, using the verb 'Find' and resource 'federal court cases'. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings 'get_case' (single case) and 'search_cases' (broader search) by focusing on company-specific queries.
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 use for finding cases by company but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it contrast with sibling tools like 'search_cases' for alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_casesBInspect
Search federal court opinions and cases via CourtListener / RECAP Archive. Filter by court, date, and case type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query (case name, topic, parties, etc.) | |
| type | No | Result type: o=opinions (default) | o |
| court | No | Court ID (e.g. ca9, scotus, dcd, nyed) | |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 20) | |
| date_after | No | Filter cases filed after date (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The search nature implies reading, but no explicit safety guarantees.
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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description does not explain return format, pagination, or empty result behavior. Side effects (e.g., API call counts) are missing. Adequate for a simple search, but incomplete for full context.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds minimal value beyond schema (e.g., 'Filter by court, date, and case type'), but does not enrich parameter meanings. Baseline of 3 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 searches federal court opinions with filtering options, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_case and get_company_cases by implying a general search, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (get_case, get_company_cases). No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The description only lists filter capabilities without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!