processo_statusConsulte o status de ingestão e cobertura (páginas processadas) de um processo. Use antes de qualquer análise. Sem autos, siga a orientação para autos_tribunal quando disponível (prévia e confirmação); consultarTribunal true acompanha a busca sem crédito.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| processoId | Yes | ID do processo (UUID) | |
| consultarTribunal | No | true = consulta também o andamento no tribunal, sem gastar crédito |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / consultarTribunalAdded value: +{
+ "description": "true = consulta também o andamento no tribunal, sem gastar crédito",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and open-world traits, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the credit-free nature of consultarTribunal=true and the fact that a missing-autos result should be handled by pivoting to autos_tribunal (prévia/confirmação).
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage order, then fallback routing. The fallback clause is somewhat telegraphic ("prévia e confirmação") but no sentence is wasted.
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 read-only status tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers what is returned (ingestion status plus page coverage), when to call it, and what to do on the no-autos path. No output schema exists, yet the key return concept is conveyed.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the credit-free behavior of consultarTribunal. The description mostly restates that no-credit detail rather than adding new semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (consultar) and resource (status de ingestão e cobertura de páginas de um processo), clarifying what 'status' actually means. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like detalhe_processo or resumo_processo, but the ingestion/coverage framing is distinctive enough.
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?
"Use antes de qualquer análise" gives a clear ordering rule, and "Sem autos, siga a orientação para autos_tribunal" routes the agent to a named alternative when the precondition fails. No explicit when-not-to-use case is given, keeping it just below the top score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.