Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-red-web-utils

mcp-red-web-utils

by hsharmanov02
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

caselaw_search

Search UK case law from the National Archives to retrieve relevant judgments and precedents for legal research or compliance checks.

Instructions

Search UK case law (National Archives) (paid per call, USDC on Base via x402)

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": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "caselaw_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a critical trait the schema cannot convey: the call is paid, priced in USDC on Base via x402. However, it omits cost magnitude, whether payment negotiation happens automatically, result limits, and pagination behavior.

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?

One line, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the source and payment note. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical stacking is slightly dense.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema this is roughly the minimum viable: it covers what it searches and that it costs money. Missing are the query-input semantics and any hint of result shape or limits, which an agent needs before spending USDC.

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 single parameter 'q' is never explained. The description does not indicate whether q is a free-text query, a citation, or supports advanced syntax/boolean operators, leaving the only input ambiguous.

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 specific verb and resource ('Search UK case law') and names the upstream source (National Archives). The 'UK' qualifier implicitly separates it from the caselaw_us sibling, but it never explicitly addresses caselaw_fetch, which is the closest conceptual neighbor.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus caselaw_fetch (retrieve full text) or caselaw_us (US jurisdiction). The search-vs-fetch split is left entirely to inference from the names.

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