Get the complete curated record for one case by package_id.
Includes the AI-assisted case summary, all extracted fields, attorney and
special master, plus links: canonical page, plain-text source bundle, and
per-document PDF links where available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It lists what the response includes (AI summary, fields, attorney, special master, links) but does not discuss authorization, rate limits, or side effects. For a read operation, the description is fairly transparent about the output.
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 long, efficient, and front-loaded. First sentence states purpose, second sentence lists contents. Every sentence adds value.
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 a single parameter, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description fully informs the agent about the return value (summary, fields, attorney, special master, links). No gaps for a read-only case retrieval tool.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'by package_id' but does not explain the format or semantics of package_id beyond being an identifier. Given only one parameter and the tool's name, the description adds minimal meaning.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'complete curated record for one case by package_id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_case_text and get_attorney by specifying the comprehensive nature of the record (including summary, fields, attorney, special master, and links).
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 when to use the tool: when the full case record is needed. It identifies the required parameter (package_id) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. However, the sibling context provides some guidance.
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.