Skip to main content
Glama

Próceres · escritos judiciales de España: papeleta, demanda y recursos

Solicitud de justicia gratuita: el impreso que toca, a quién va y los escritos que la acompañan

solicitud_justicia_gratuita
Read-only

Para PEDIR la justicia gratuita (las impugnaciones y lo que pasa después están en impugnacion_justicia_gratuita). Dice qué impreso oficial corresponde a la comunidad y dónde se descarga en blanco, a qué Comisión de Asistencia Jurídica Gratuita y a qué Colegio va, y compone el papel que se pide en escrito: comunicacion_cajg, el escrito que acompaña a la solicitud y pide a la Comisión que la remita al Colegio que gestiona el turno de oficio (arts. 14.1 y 16 de la Ley 39/2015, Ley 1/1996); autorizacion_consulta, la autorización para que la Comisión consulte los datos económicos por su cuenta (art. 17.1 de la Ley 1/1996); suspension_art16, la petición de que se suspendan los plazos del proceso mientras se resuelve (art. 16); impugnacion_art20, la impugnación de la denegación (art. 20). El impreso relleno no lo devuelve: lleva los datos de identidad y económicos de quien pide, y se rellena en la portada de la web, en el navegador. No pide ni devuelve datos personales: el nombre, el DNI, el domicilio y el contacto NO están entre sus campos (el escrito los deja como huecos entre corchetes para que los rellene quien lo presenta). No le pidas esos datos y no los escribas en la llamada.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "escrito": "<escrito>"
    },
    "name": "solicitud_justicia_gratuita"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
escritoYesEl papel: comunicacion_cajg, suspension_art16 (Suspensión de plazos (art. 16)), impugnacion_art20 (Impugnación de la denegación (art. 20)), autorizacion_consulta (Autorización de consulta de datos).
juzgadoNoEn suspension_art16 e impugnacion_art20: el juzgado que lleva el procedimiento, si consta.
personaNoSolo en comunicacion_cajg: «juridica» si pide una entidad (comparece su representante).
comunidadNoLa comunidad donde se pide (decide el impreso, la Comisión y el Colegio). Sin ella, la del Ministerio de Justicia.
numeroAutosNoEn suspension_art16 e impugnacion_art20: el número del procedimiento, si consta.
notificacionesNoDónde recibe las notificaciones quien firma: «dehu» si las quiere en la Dirección Electrónica Habilitada única (la comparecencia lo señala como medio y no lleva el hueco del domicilio); «domicilio» o sin el dato, el domicilio.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, closed-world operation, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: the filled form is NOT returned (filling happens in the browser on the site), no personal data is accepted or returned, and the composed escrito leaves identity fields as bracketed placeholders. That last point is the key operational constraint for an agent. It stops short of describing the return payload structure, but the no-output-schema case makes that a minor gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling exclusion, then the escrito catalog. The prohibition on personal data is valuable but restated in slightly different words across two closing sentences, which is mild redundancy in an otherwise dense, information-rich passage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only composition tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers what is produced, what is deliberately not produced, the legal framing of each option, and the privacy constraint. Nothing essential to a correct call is missing; only the shape of the returned text is unspecified, which is a small gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries enum meanings, conditions per value, and the fallback behavior of `comunidad`. The description reinforces the role of `escrito` and its legal basis but does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and object ('PEDIR la justicia gratuita') and immediately scopes out the sibling ('las impugnaciones ... están en impugnacion_justicia_gratuita'). It then specifies the three concrete outputs: which official form applies, which Comisión/Colegio it goes to, and which accompanying escrito is composed.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly names the alternative tool for the post-denial/impugnación phase and gives the selecting condition. It also routes within the tool itself by explaining what each value of `escrito` is for and citing the governing article, so an agent can pick the right value without guessing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources