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

mcp-red-web-utils

by hsharmanov02
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

caselaw_us

Search US case law via CourtListener by query and optional court to find relevant opinions and rulings. Pay per call in USDC on Base through x402.

Instructions

Search US case law (CourtListener) (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_us"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYes
courtNo

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 behavioral burden, and it does disclose two important traits: results come from CourtListener and each call is billed (USDC on Base via x402), which matters for agent decision-making. It omits permissions/handling, result limits, pagination, and failure modes — and with no output schema, return shape is unknown.

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?

A single compact phrase with the core action front-loaded and the cost/payment detail bracketed at the end. Nothing is redundant — source, operation, and billing each appear exactly once.

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?

For a paid, unannotated, output-schema-less search tool with two undocumented parameters, the description leaves too much open: no return shape, no result caps, no payment failure behavior, and no disambiguation from caselaw_search. Only the billing model is adequately covered.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does not: neither "q" (query syntax, operators) nor "court" (accepted court identifiers or format) is explained. The agent is left to guess whether "court" takes a name, an abbreviation, or a CourtListener ID.

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?

"Search US case law" gives a specific verb and resource, and names the upstream source (CourtListener). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools caselaw_search and caselaw_fetch, so an agent cannot tell from this text which one to pick.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of how this relates to caselaw_search or caselaw_fetch. The only usage-relevant signal is the implicit cost warning "paid per call," which suggests preferring free alternatives without saying so explicitly.

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