UK Legal Research MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, the description reveals that results are paginated and provides specific URI patterns for accessing judgment details. This gives the agent practical guidance on result structure and follow-up actions that annotations don't cover.

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?

The description is perfectly structured and concise with zero wasted words. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, the second describes the return format, and the remaining sentences provide essential usage guidance and sibling differentiation. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (search with multiple filters), rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, how to use the results, and when to use alternatives. The output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true') means the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, making this description appropriately comprehensive.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already thoroughly documents all 7 parameters with clear descriptions, types, constraints, and examples. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional value. The schema does all the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool searches UK case law via a specific API (TNA Find Case Law API) and returns paginated judgment summaries. It distinguishes from sibling 'case_law_grep_judgment' by explaining that tool is for content-based discovery within a judgment, while this tool is for initial search. The verb 'search' and resource 'UK case law' are specific and well-defined.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states to use 'judgment://{slug}/header' to inspect a result, 'judgment://{slug}/index' to discover paragraphs, and 'judgment://{slug}/para/{eId}' to read individual paragraphs. Most importantly, it explicitly names the alternative tool 'case_law_grep_judgment' for content-based discovery within a judgment, providing clear sibling differentiation.

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