Indiana Code

Browse Indiana judicial officers

judicial_officers_browse

Read-onlyIdempotent

Pre-election roster of Indiana judicial officers from the official Directory of Courts and Clerks (trial, 2026-10-21) and appellate bios (2026-10-27). county is a name such as 'Adams'. court is 'Circuit Court' or 'Indiana Supreme Court'. role is judge, magistrate, justice, or chief_justice. Not a post-canvass list. Not salaries. Unofficial; not legal advice.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "judicial_officers_browse"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	No
`court`	No
`county`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds real value by disclosing data currency dates (2026-10-21, 2026-10-27) and the 'Unofficial; not legal advice' caveat, which are not in the annotations. It stops short of describing result volume, ordering, or pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and provenance are front-loaded, followed by parameter semantics, then exclusions — a sensible ordering with no filler. The clipped sentence fragments ('Not salaries. Unofficial; not legal advice.') are terse but each carries a distinct guardrail, so waste is minimal though the prose is choppy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-shape description is unnecessary, and the description covers provenance, filter formats and scope exclusions adequately for a 3-optional-parameter browse tool. What remains missing is guidance on combining filters and behavior when no filters are supplied.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: county is exemplified ('Adams'), court is exemplified ('Circuit Court', 'Indiana Supreme Court'), and role enumerates the four accepted values. It omits filter combination semantics, matching behavior (exact vs partial, case sensitivity), and what unfiltered calls return, keeping it from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly establishes the resource (a pre-election roster of Indiana judicial officers) and its provenance (Directory of Courts and Clerks plus appellate bios), so an agent knows it retrieves officer listings rather than case law. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling judicial_officers_search or explain what 'browse' adds over 'search'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied through scope exclusions ('Not a post-canvass list. Not salaries'), which help the agent avoid miscalling for salary or post-election data. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus judicial_officers_search, nor whether filters are optional or combinable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Indiana Code 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.