Skip to main content
Glama

Search Indiana judicial officers

judicial_officers_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Name search of the pre-election judicial officer roster. query is a surname or part of a name. Not a post-canvass list. Not salaries. Unofficial; not legal advice.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "judicial_officers_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by labeling the data unofficial and stating it is not legal advice, while also specifying the pre-election roster scope.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is short, front-loaded, and every sentence adds a useful constraint or caveat. The terse negative scoping statements efficiently prevent common misuses without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with dense annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, query semantics, and caveats. The only notable gaps are the unexplained limit parameter and the lack of explicit sibling-tool guidance.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the required query parameter well ('surname or part of a name') but does not explain the optional limit parameter, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a name search of the pre-election judicial officer roster. It also clarifies the intended scope by excluding post-canvass lists and salary data, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling judicial_officers_browse tool.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear context and explicit when-not signals ('Not a post-canvass list. Not salaries.'), which helps an agent avoid using it for those datasets. However, it does not name alternative tools such as judicial_officers_browse for browsing rather than searching.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.