Acervo jurídico brasileiro: busca por assunto e leitura em Markdown, com fontes oficiais.
Busca páginas do acervo jurídico brasileiro por assunto, em português. Devolve caminhos canônicos que servem de entrada para ler_pagina.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limite | No | máximo de resultados (padrão 8, teto 25) | |
| consulta | Yes | pergunta ou termos em português, como 'produto com defeito troca' |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| paginas | Yes | |
| total_indexado | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it searches only Portuguese content and returns canonical paths. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the tool's output role and language constraint.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb, resource, and key constraints. No filler or redundant information.
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 presence of an output schema, annotations, and a sibling tool, the description is complete: it explains the tool's purpose, its language scope, and how its output connects to ler_pagina. No critical context is missing for a simple search tool.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), with clear descriptions for 'consulta' and 'limite'. The description does not add significant parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('páginas do acervo jurídico brasileiro') with a clear scope ('por assunto, em português'). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool by stating that it returns canonical paths to be used as input for ler_pagina.
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 clear context by establishing a workflow: use buscar_paginas to find pages, then use ler_pagina to read them. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the inter-tool relationship is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Devolve o texto integral de uma página do acervo pelo id que search retornou, com a URL para citação.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | o id devolvido por search — a rota canônica da página, como /consumidor/produto-com-defeito/ |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| url | Yes | |
| text | Yes | |
| title | Yes | |
| metadata | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns full text and a citation URL, which is light behavioral context. It does not discuss errors, rate limits, or the fact that idempotentHint=false is set despite a read-only operation.
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?
A single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and object and states the id source. There is no unnecessary repetition or boilerplate.
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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core operation and the id provenance. The only notable gap is lack of guidance on how this relates to the sibling 'ler_pagina', which could confuse an agent choosing between them.
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%, and the schema already explains that 'id' is the canonical page route returned by search. The description restates this dependency but adds no new parameter-level details. 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Devolve') and resource ('texto integral de uma página do acervo'), and specifies that the identifier comes from 'search'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling 'ler_pagina', which appears to perform a similar read operation.
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 conveys a clear prerequisite: use the id returned by search. This gives the agent context about when to call the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lê uma página do acervo em Markdown, com as seções, as perguntas frequentes e as fontes oficiais com URL — é por elas que se confere o que a página afirma.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caminho | Yes | rota canônica devolvida pela busca, com barra final (ex.: /consumidor/produto-com-defeito/) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| titulo | Yes | |
| caminho | Yes | |
| markdown | Yes | |
| url_canonica | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds meaningful context by specifying output format (Markdown) and contents (sections, FAQ, official sources with URLs). It also explains the purpose of sources for verification. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description exceeds baseline by providing these details.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's action, resource, and output components. It is concise with no filler words, fully earning its place.
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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains what the returned page contains and even how to use the sources for verification, which complements the structured output schema and provides enough context for a correct invocation.
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?
The schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the 'caminho' parameter with a clear description ('rota canônica devolvida pela busca, com barra final'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 is specific and action-oriented: 'Lê uma página do acervo em Markdown' clearly states the verb and resource. It enumerates content components (sections, FAQ, official sources) and implicitly differentiates from the sibling search tool 'buscar_paginas' by focusing on reading a specific page.
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?
Usage context is provided through the parameter description mentioning 'rota canônica devolvida pela busca', which implies this tool is used after a search to fetch a page. The description also hints at verification purposes ('é por elas que se confere o que a página afirma'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Relata um defeito encontrado numa página publicada do acervo — citação legal mal atribuída, fonte divergente ou conteúdo desatualizado — para a fila de triagem humana. EXIGE CREDENCIAL: um token Bearer com o escopo relatos:escrever, obtido em /oauth/token (o fluxo está descrito em /auth.md). O trecho citado precisa ocorrer, ao pé da letra, no Markdown que ler_pagina devolveu para a mesma página — é essa a âncora contra relato inventado.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tipo | Yes | natureza do defeito relatado | |
| caminho | Yes | rota canônica da página com o defeito — a mesma que buscar_paginas ou ler_pagina devolveram, com barra final (ex.: /consumidor/produto-com-defeito/) | |
| descricao | Yes | o que está errado, em português, com detalhe suficiente para a triagem humana agir sem precisar adivinhar | |
| trecho_citado | Yes | trecho EXATO copiado do Markdown que ler_pagina devolveu para esta página; é contra ele que o portal confere que o relato não foi inventado — trecho que não ocorre ao pé da letra no documento é recusado | |
| fonte_oficial_url | No | URL https:// em domínio oficial (gov.br, jus.br, leg.br, mp.br, def.br) que sustenta o relato; obrigatória quando tipo é citacao_incorreta ou fonte_divergente |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| estado | Yes | |
| relato_id | Yes | |
| repeticoes | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description substantially goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the OAuth endpoint and scope (scope relatos:escrever, /oauth/token), warning about the credential need, and defining the anti-forgery anchor: the exact quoted excerpt must match what ler_pagina returned. This adds actionable behavioral context that enums and the readOnly/destructive hints alone do not provide. No contradiction with the annotations is present.
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 three sentences long and each sentence earns its place: purpose, authentication requirement, and the critical exact-match anchor. It is front-loaded and free of filler, despite being information-dense.
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?
The description plus the rich input schema fully specify the operation: what the tool does, when to use it, what credential is required, how caminho is canonical, how the trecho_citado de ancoragem must match, and when other fields are intended. The output schema is provided, so return-value details are not missing from coverage artifact.
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 fully documents each parameter. The tool description mostly reinforces the trecho_citado rule already present in the schema, rather than introducing new parameter-level details. It adds only a general rationale for the anchor, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 names the concrete action with a specific verb ('Relata um defeito'), identifies the target resource ('página publicada do acervo'), and lists defect categories (citação legal mal atribuída, fonte divergente, conteúdo desatualizado). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools buscar_paginas and ler_pagina by focusing on reporting, not searching or reading.
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?
It explains when to use the tool (found a defect in a published page) and the important workflow prerequisite: the quoted excerpt must come from exactly the Markdown returned by ler_pagina. It also states the required credential scope. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or name an alternative pathway, so it stops just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Responde uma pergunta jurídica em português com frases EXTRAÍDAS das páginas publicadas — nenhuma frase é gerada — e devolve as citações e as fontes oficiais que sustentam cada trecho, com a data em que cada fonte foi conferida.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paginas | No | quantas páginas do acervo sustentam a resposta (padrão 3, teto 5) | |
| pergunta | Yes | pergunta em português, como 'a loja pode recusar a troca de um produto com defeito?' |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| aviso | Yes | |
| metodo | Yes | |
| citacoes | Yes | |
| resposta | Yes | |
| fontes_oficiais | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavior: no sentence is generated, content is extracted verbatim from published pages, and every excerpt is tied to citations and official sources with a verification date. It does not contradict the annotations, though it leaves the idempotentHint=false annotation unexplained.
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 definition is a single sentence that packs the core action, the no-generation guarantee, and the return content without filler. The em-dash emphasis and all-caps 'EXTRAÍDAS' slightly reduce elegance but every clause earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present, readOnlyHint=true, and only two well-documented parameters, the description covers the tool's essential behavior and return commitments (extracted quotes, citations, official sources, verification dates). It is complete for invocation, though it would benefit from explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling search tools.
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?
The input schema already documents both parameters (pergunta and paginas) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantic details beyond the schema; it only restates the general question/pages context.
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 names a specific action (responds to a legal question in Portuguese), a clear resource (published pages), and a distinctive output (citations, official sources, and the date each source was checked). The emphasized constraint 'nenhuma frase é gerada' differentiates it from search/fetch/ler_pagina siblings by promising an answer, not just retrieval.
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 makes the intended use clear—answering a legal question in Portuguese using extracted quoted sentences—so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Busca no acervo jurídico brasileiro e devolve id, título e URL de cada página. Formato padrão de conector (o mesmo de fetch); para área e trecho, use buscar_paginas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | pergunta ou termos em português sobre direito brasileiro |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns id, title, and URL, and mentions 'standard connector format' which hints at output structure. It doesn't disclose pagination or rate limits, but with readOnlyHint and an output schema present, the additional value is moderate.
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?
Two concise sentences with the primary action and return format front-loaded, followed by a clear routing instruction. No wasted words.
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 single-parameter search tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential behavior and distinguishes the sibling. It lacks explicit pagination details, but that's a minor gap given the simplicity.
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 query parameter is already documented. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the Brazilian legal collection and returns id, title, and URL for each page. It explicitly contrasts with buscar_paginas for 'área e trecho', distinguishing it from a sibling tool.
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?
It provides a clear alternative ('use buscar_paginas') for a different use case (area and excerpt), giving guidance on when not to use this tool. It doesn't elaborate on other contexts, but this is sufficient for the primary distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on 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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Busca e verifica jurisprudência brasileira real (+400 mil julgados) — anti-alucinação para IA.
Open-source alternative to Jusbrasil for AI: find lawsuits by name, CPF, CNPJ or case number and bui
Case law search, court decisions and súmulas, across indexed public sources (STF, STJ, TST, state co
Pesquisa de legislação e jurisprudência brasileiras. Exclusivo para assinantes MinutaIA.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set has two overlapping pairs: search/buscar_paginas and fetch/ler_pagina both address searching and reading, which could confuse an agent. The descriptions do provide some separation—one pair is the standard connector format and the other is subject-oriented—but the boundaries are not immediately obvious from names alone.
Naming mixes Portuguese snake_case verbs (buscar_paginas, ler_pagina, relatar_defeito, responder_pergunta) with English bare names (fetch, search). This inconsistent language and style makes the tool set feel less predictable and harder to navigate.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for this domain. Each tool serves a plausible purpose: two search variants, two read variants, a defect reporting flow, and a question-answering flow. The count is neither bloated nor too thin.
The surface covers the core lifecycle of this read-only legal collection: discover pages, retrieve content, verify sources, submit defect reports, and ask grounded questions. No major operation appears to be missing for the stated purpose.
