California Slip & Fall Evidence Checker | JSM Injury Firm
Server Details
Not sure what to do after a slip and fall in California? Use this free evidence checker to find out
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
1 toolcheck_slip_fall_evidenceCalifornia Slip & Fall Evidence CheckerAInspect
Educational decision-support tool for people injured in a slip and fall in California. Given answers describing how a fall happened, injuries, evidence already preserved, and any insurance or property-owner communications, it returns a structured, educational evidence-preservation checklist: an urgency level, the specific evidence to preserve, what to avoid, and questions worth asking an attorney. SAFEGUARDS: Informational/educational ONLY — NOT legal advice. It does NOT assess liability or fault, does NOT determine claim validity, does NOT calculate case value, does NOT estimate probability of winning, does NOT guarantee outcomes, and does NOT create an attorney-client relationship. Any response must be conveyed to the end user as educational information only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timing | No | How long ago the incident occurred, e.g. within_24h, within_48h, within_week, within_2weeks, within_month, within_3months, within_6months, over_6months. | |
| fallType | No | How the fall happened, e.g. slip_wet_floor, trip_uneven, fell_stairs, fell_parking, fell_sidewalk, fell_store, fell_apartment, fell_restaurant, fell_pool, fell_elevator, other. | |
| witnesses | No | Witness status, e.g. yes_contact, yes_no_contact, no_witnesses. | |
| medicalCare | No | Medical care status, e.g. yes_treated, no_cant_afford, no_not_yet. | |
| warningSign | No | Whether a warning sign was present, e.g. yes_adequate, yes_inadequate, no_sign. | |
| publicPrivate | No | Whether the fall was on public/government property or private property. Public property falls involve shorter government-claim deadlines in California. | |
| hazardDuration | No | How long the hazard likely existed, e.g. minutes, hours, days, weeks_months, permanent. | |
| incidentReport | No | Whether an incident report was created, e.g. yes, no, refused. | |
| injurySymptoms | No | List of injury symptoms, e.g. fracture, head_injury, surgery_recommended, back_injury, nerve_damage, bruising, sprain. | |
| rentalProperty | No | Whether the fall involved a rental/landlord property, e.g. yes_tenant, yes_visitor, no. | |
| staffAwareness | No | Whether staff/owner were aware of the hazard, e.g. yes_definitely, told_them, should_have, no. | |
| priorComplaints | No | Whether prior complaints about the hazard were made, e.g. yes_written, yes_verbal, others_complained, none. | |
| settlementOffer | No | Settlement offer status, e.g. yes_accepted, yes_considering, yes_declined, none. | |
| signedDocuments | No | Whether any insurance/property documents were signed, e.g. yes, no. | |
| faultQuestioning | No | Whether fault has been questioned, e.g. yes_insurance, yes_both, no. | |
| recurringProblem | No | Whether the hazard was a recurring problem, e.g. yes, heard, no. | |
| recordedStatement | No | Insurance recorded-statement status, e.g. yes_gave, asked_not_given, not_asked. | |
| surveillanceVideo | No | Whether surveillance cameras may exist, e.g. yes_cameras, maybe, no_cameras. | |
| videoPreservation | No | Status of any request to preserve video, e.g. no_not_yet, requested, refused, preserved. | |
| symptomProgression | No | How symptoms are progressing, e.g. worse, new_symptoms, same, improving. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool does NOT assess liability, determine claim validity, calculate case value, estimate win probability, guarantee outcomes, or create an attorney-client relationship, and requires that responses be conveyed as educational information only. This is unusually complete behavioral transparency.
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 well-organized: purpose first, concrete output next, and safeguards last. The SAFEGUARDS section is long but warranted given the legal-adjacent domain and the need to prevent misuse. Every sentence adds necessary meaning.
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 tool with 20 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no siblings, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies inputs, output structure, jurisdictional scope, and explicit non-goals, giving an agent enough context to invoke the tool and interpret its educational-only response correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description groups the 20 inputs into broad categories ('how a fall happened, injuries, evidence already preserved, and any insurance or property-owner communications'), which provides useful context, but it does not add individual detail beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.
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 states a specific verb ('returns'), resource ('educational evidence-preservation checklist for California slip and fall'), and exactly what the output contains: urgency level, evidence to preserve, what to avoid, and questions for an attorney. It is clearly differentiated from generic legal tools by its explicit educational scope.
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 clearly identifies the target user and scenario: people injured in a slip and fall in California who want an educational evidence-preservation checklist. It does not name alternatives, but there are no sibling tools, and the contextual framing plus 'educational only' boundary sufficiently implies when it should and should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- First observed
check_slip_fall_evidence
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Bitten or injured by a dog in California? Use this private checklist to understand what evidence to
11Free check of a California home for a Proposition 8 property tax reduction, plus owner filing.
Pain shooting down your leg? Answer a few questions about your lower back pain, sciatica, numbness,
61California criminal-justice accountability: DAs, defenders, judges, officers, CJP, POST.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAllows agents to check and file California Prop 8 property tax reduction in an automated way3MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceDeterministic legal citation verification for AI-generated legal briefs. Three-layer verification: CourtListener database lookup, quote-match against primary source, and LLM edge-case verification. Free tier available.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenance200+ AI-powered legal research and drafting skills for attorneys — case law analysis, motion drafting, contract review, deposition prep, and ABA compliance tools. LawTasksAI.com never sees your client data.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceLA County ADU buildability checks, zoning rules, permit trends, and cost estimates — free, no auth.-
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
With only one tool exposed, there is no other tool to confuse it with. The single tool has a clearly defined purpose: returning an educational slip-and-fall evidence checklist.
The tool name follows a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern and is descriptive. While one tool does not establish a broad pattern, there is no naming inconsistency or style mixing.
One tool is slightly below the typical 3-15 range, but it is appropriate for a tightly scoped, single-purpose evidence checker rather than a trivial or generic utility. The narrow domain explains the minimal surface.
The tool covers the full stated purpose: it takes relevant input about the fall, injuries, preserved evidence, and communications, then outputs urgency, evidence to preserve, actions to avoid, and attorney questions. There are no obvious missing operations within the server's declared scope.