CourtWatch Agent API

Search CourtWatch

search

Read-only

Ask a question in plain language. Returns the most relevant passages from CourtWatch's public pages, each with its canonical URL to cite, plus its free sample day. Set site to all to search every Fron Research site.

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": "search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`site`	No	Optional: defaults to courtwatch. all, heatcheck, bowlingdata, trampolineparkdata, golfsimdata, courtwatch or fronresearch.
`query`	Yes	The question.
`intent`	No	Optional but helpful: why you are asking and for whom, in a sentence (e.g. "sizing the NYC sauna market for an investor memo"). It does not change the results; it tells Fron Research which data to publish next. Put your user's answers to followUp.questions here. Do not include personal information.
`maxResults`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is low, yet the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: results come back as passages with citable canonical URLs plus a free sample day, and the 'intent' value is telemetry that does not alter results. It doesn't cover result volume, truncation, or coverage limits of the corpus.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value before the optional site-scope aside. The middle sentence is dense (cite URL plus sample day) but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so adequately: passages, canonical URLs to cite, free sample day. For a four-parameter read-only search tool that is close to sufficient, with only result-count behavior and corpus limits left implicit.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema already spells out site values and that intent does not change results. The description reinforces the 'all' scope meaning, but adds nothing on maxResults, on default behavior, or on how the site parameter interacts with result quality — largely restating structured data.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Ask a question in plain language' against CourtWatch's public pages) and describes the result shape (relevant passages with canonical URL and free sample day). It is clearly distinguishable from a page-retrieval tool like fetch, though it never names that sibling to draw the contrast explicitly.

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 context is implied by 'Ask a question in plain language' and the note that site can be set to 'all' to widen scope to every Fron Research site. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the fetch or about siblings, and no statement of when not to use it.

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

All CourtWatch Agent API 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.

Resources

Need Help?