Fetch a case file by case_id or parcel ID to inspect proposed verdict, confidence, ORB references, deed closure/IoU checks, and parcel issues.
One case file by case_id (e.g. '0015420010__0015315300') or by a parcel ID (e.g. '001542 0010'): the proposed verdict, confidence, ORB refs, deed check (closure, IoU) and the parcel's issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | No | ||
| parcel_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned payload (verdict, confidence, deed check with closure and IoU, parcel issues), which substitutes for a missing output schema. However, it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, error behavior when a case is not found, or what happens if both/neither identifier is supplied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the lookup keys and followed by the returned fields, with no filler. The nested parentheticals are slightly dense but each carries useful format or payload information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers both input formats and the return contents, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is requiredness/precedence between the two optional identifiers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must do the work, and it does add real value by supplying concrete identifier formats ('0015420010__0015315300' vs '001542 0010') that the bare null-typed string fields do not convey. It stops short of stating whether exactly one identifier is required or which wins if both are passed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('One case file by case_id ... or by a parcel ID') and enumerates the payload (verdict, confidence, ORB refs, deed check, issues), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not reference any sibling tool, so differentiation from the inspect/query tools is left implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states the two valid lookup keys and gives concrete example formats, which implies when the tool applies. But there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over siblings like find_issues, explain_issue, or run_query, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.