Skip to main content
Glama
underwriter-MRX

mrx-public

by underwriter-MRX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

mrx_search_guides

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search public mineral-rights guides by keyword, jurisdiction, or topic to find verified titles, headings, and article text. Use filters to narrow results and identify omissions for research.

Instructions

Search verified public MRX titles, headings and article text. Optional jurisdiction/topic filters are source-text matches, not legal conclusions. Coverage reports omissions. Do not include personal data in a research query.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
topicNo
jurisdictionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / jurisdiction
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Jurisdiction"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / topic
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Topic"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description goes beyond these by disclosing that coverage reports omissions, filters are source-text matches not legal conclusions, and personal data should not be included—valuable behavioral caveats not present in the structured 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?

Three concise sentences deliver the core purpose first, then key caveats. No filler or redundancy; each sentence earns its place and front-loads the action.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description explains search scope and some filter semantics but omits return format, pagination, or result structure. For a search tool, an agent would need more detail on what a response contains, so this is minimally viable but not complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It only addresses jurisdiction/topic filters ('source-text matches, not legal conclusions') and implies the query searches titles/headings/text. It gives no detail on query syntax, limit behavior, or how filters combine, leaving most parameters underspecified relative to their schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search') and defines the resource scope ('verified public MRX titles, headings and article text'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic siblings like 'search' and 'fetch' by stating the exact content domain and verified-public nature.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage scope ('verified public MRX') and gives a caution about jurisdiction/topic being source-text matches, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as the generic 'search' sibling. No exclusions or 'use this when' guidance is provided.

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