Get the staged plain text of a case's public court documents.
Long decisions can exceed 100 pages; the text is returned in chunks.
Use offset_chars from the previous response's next_offset to page
through. max_chars is capped at 50,000.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_chars | No | ||
| package_id | Yes | ||
| offset_chars | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that long decisions are returned in chunks, with pagination via offset_chars and a cap of 50,000 characters. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it effectively conveys read-only behavior and pagination details.
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 concise, with four sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide pagination details. No redundant or unnecessary information.
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?
The description lacks an explanation of the return format (e.g., that the response includes text and next_offset). While it provides pagination guidance, it doesn't cover the structure of the response, which is important given the absence of an output schema.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining offset_chars (use next_offset from previous response) and max_chars (capped at 50,000). Package_id is not explained but is obvious from context. The description compensates for the missing schema documentation.
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 retrieves staged plain text of a case's public court documents. The verb 'Get' and resource are specific, and it is distinguishable from siblings like 'get_case' (metadata) and 'search_cases' (search).
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 explains pagination mechanics using offset_chars and max_chars, indicating how to page through long documents. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions.
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.