Read the SideEye open docket
list_casesList public two-sided dilemmas that need reasoned human and agent verdicts. Free to call.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
SideEye Human Signal Court
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' and 'Free to call' indicate a read-only, cost-free operation, but the description does not disclose pagination, ordering, or what fields each case returns. It provides basic safety signals but lacks depth.
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?
Two short sentences, no fluff, and the key action is front-loaded. 'Free to call' is a useful additional note that does not waste space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no parameter explanations, the description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the tool's output or behavior. It does not mention what a case item looks like, how results are ordered, or how limit affects the response, leaving significant gaps for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The schema itself provides default/min/max constraints, but the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource: 'public two-sided dilemmas that need reasoned human and agent verdicts.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like cast_verdict (casting) and file_case (filing), and the title reinforces the docket-reading purpose.
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?
The phrase 'Free to call' implies low-risk and encourages use, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The context of listing open dilemmas suggests a precursor to casting verdicts, but this is only implied, not stated.
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.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
answer_duel and try_answer_duel share the same core action of comparing two candidate answers, while play_sideeye and cast_verdict both involve casting a vote and earning a leaderboard point. The descriptions draw meaningful boundaries via payment/free and today's case vs. general case, but an agent could still easily pick the wrong tool.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern such as file_case, list_cases, cast_verdict, and play_sideeye. leaderboard breaks the pattern as a bare noun, and answer_duel reads as both verb+noun and noun+noun, so the convention is strong but not perfect.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools cover the main activities of the court platform: filing cases, listing cases, voting, evaluating answers, and checking reputation. The count feels intentional and neither bloated nor thin for the stated purpose.
Completeness4/5
The core loop of file_case, list_cases, cast_verdict, and leaderboard is solid, and answer_duel/try_answer_duel add a distinct evaluative workflow. Obvious gaps like a dedicated case-detail endpoint, explicit case resolution/outcome view, or update/delete operations are missing, but agents can work around them.