Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rocketmatter-mcp

rocketmatter-mcp

by RosenAdvertising
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_new_matter_definition

Look up the definition schema for a matter to ensure proper field configuration. Use this tool to get the new matter definition structure by providing a matter ID.

Instructions

[Not in LCS /v1] New-matter definition lookup. Fails loudly.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_new_matter_definition"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
matter_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral hint is 'Fails loudly', which implies error handling but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely concise (9 words) but lacks structure. It includes an out-of-context note '[Not in LCS /v1]' that is not integrated. The brevity comes at the cost of missing essential information about parameters and usage.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the 'definition' contains, making it incomplete for a lookup tool. Combined with no annotations and minimal behavioral info, the agent lacks sufficient context to decide when and how to use this tool.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has one parameter 'matter_id' with no description and 0% coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, providing no additional meaning or usage guidance beyond the schema definition.

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 clearly states 'New-matter definition lookup', specifying the verb (lookup) and resource (new-matter definition). It distinguishes somewhat from siblings like 'get_matter' and 'get_new_matter_defaults', though not explicitly. The '[Not in LCS /v1]' indicates it's a legacy or alternative version.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_matter' or 'get_new_matter_defaults'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools