Acervo jurídico brasileiro: busca por assunto e leitura em Markdown, com fontes oficiais.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one searches for pages by subject, the other reads a specific page. They are complementary rather than overlapping, so an agent can easily choose the right one.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in Portuguese: buscar_paginas and ler_pagina. The plural 'paginas' vs singular 'pagina' naturally reflects the operation (search many, read one) and does not create confusion.
With only two tools, the server feels thin, but it aligns with the narrow scope of searching and reading legal pages. This is borderline acceptable for a read-only reference tool.
The domain is a read-only legal reference collection, and the two tools cover the full workflow: search to find relevant pages, then read the selected page. There are no apparent missing operations like create, update, or delete, which are irrelevant here.
buscar_paginasABusca 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.
ler_paginaALê 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.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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!