mcp-nsa

search_by_case

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find Polish administrative court decisions by case number, covering NSA and regional administrative courts.

Instructions

Skrot: szuka orzeczenia po sygnaturze. Odpowiednik search z parametrem caseNumber. Jesli orzeczenie nie znajdzie sie - sygnatura moze byc z sadu powszechnego/SN/TK/KIO (uzyj wtedy saos__search_by_case).

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": {
      "caseNumber": "<caseNumber>"
    },
    "name": "search_by_case"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`caseNumber`	Yes	Sygnatura akt, np. 'III OSK 1377/23'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explaining this is a shortcut equivalent to search with caseNumber, and that it may not find judgments from certain courts, prompting a fallback. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Very concise: two sentences convey purpose, equivalence, and fallback advice. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, safe annotations), the description is nearly complete. It states what it searches, the input format, and provides error handling guidance. Minor gap: no mention of the output structure, but it implies a judgment object. Almost complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'caseNumber' described with an example. The description adds that if the judgment is not found, the case number might be from other courts, but this is contextual rather than direct parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it searches for a judgment by case number ('szuka orzeczenia po sygnaturze'). It distinguishes from siblings by being a shortcut for 'search' with the caseNumber parameter and provides a fallback alternative (saos__search_by_case) for other court types.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells when to use: as a shortcut for search with caseNumber. Also gives guidance on when not to: if judgment not found, case number might be from other courts (common, Supreme, etc.), then use saos__search_by_case. This clear when-to-use and alternative advice is excellent.

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

Deploy Server