Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
precedent

precedent

by ZNLong2203
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

decision_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a legal decision still stands: get clause-level status, who treated it, quoted evidence, and who relies on it before citing.

Instructions

Is this decision still good law? Clause-level standing, who treated it and the quoted evidence, who relies on it.

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": {
      "decision": "<decision>"
    },
    "name": "decision_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
decisionYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are clause-level and evidence-backed, which hints at depth of analysis, but it largely restates the expected return shape rather than disclosing behavior like latency, sourcing limits, or how 'still good law' is determined.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the core question and then the content of the answer. The telegraphic phrasing ('who treated it and the quoted evidence') is dense but not wasteful, so nothing needs cutting.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Because an output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers purpose well. The remaining gap is meaningful for a one-parameter tool: the agent still cannot tell what to put in 'decision' or when to prefer this over cite_check.

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% for the single required 'decision' parameter, and the description never explains what form that identifier takes (case name, reporter citation, or internal ID) or whether the decision may be passed as a reference. With one undocumented parameter, the description should have compensated but does not.

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 question form 'Is this decision still good law?' clearly identifies the resource (a decision) and the question answered (current validity/standing), and the follow-on list specifies clause-level standing, treatment, quoted evidence, and reliance. This distinguishes it from siblings like cite_check or propose_decision. Slight deduction only because the verb is implicit and no sibling is named 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?

The framing implies when the tool is appropriate: when you need to know whether a decision has been overruled, distinguished, or is still relied upon. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to the adjacent cite_check tool, so the agent must infer the boundary between citation validation and standing analysis.

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