JuriBase
Server Details
Busca e verifica jurisprudência brasileira real (+400 mil julgados) — anti-alucinação para IA.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for jurisprudence, the other verifies citations. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in Portuguese: 'buscar_jurisprudencia' and 'verificar_citacao'.
With only 2 tools, the set is on the thin side for the domain of legal research. While each tool is essential, the low count borders on insufficient for comprehensive coverage.
The tools cover searching and verifying citations, which are core operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no advanced filtering or full text retrieval), but agents can work around them.
Available Tools
2 toolsbuscar_jurisprudenciaBuscar jurisprudênciaARead-onlyInspect
Busca decisões judiciais brasileiras reais (acórdãos, súmulas, teses, repetitivos) na base JuriBase, de fontes oficiais — todos os 27 TJs, 6 TRFs, STF, STJ, TST, TNU. Use sempre que precisar de jurisprudência/precedentes para fundamentar uma resposta jurídica; nunca invente citações, busque aqui. Filtre por tribunais (ex.: ['STJ','TJSP']) quando o usuário especificar. Retorna ementa, processo, relator, data, link da fonte oficial e o escopo coberto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| consulta | Yes | tema, pergunta jurídica ou palavras-chave (ex.: 'dano moral negativação indevida') | |
| tribunais | No | siglas para filtrar (ex.: ['STJ','TJSP']); omita para buscar em toda a base |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds that it returns ementa, processo, relator, data, link, and scope, and that sources cover all 27 TJs, 6 TRFs, STF, STJ, TST, TNU. No contradictions with annotations.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose and scope, second gives usage directive, third details filtering and return. Every sentence adds value; 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?
Tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and few annotations. Description covers all necessary context: what it searches, when to use, return fields, and source coverage. Fully sufficient for proper 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?
Schema already describes both parameters (consulta and tribunais) with clear descriptions. Description adds usage context for tribunais filtering but does not provide additional semantic details beyond schema coverage of 100%.
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?
Description clearly states the tool searches for Brazilian judicial decisions (acórdãos, súmulas, etc.) in JuriBase from official sources. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'verificar_citacao' by focusing on searching jurisprudence rather than verifying citations.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use sempre que precisar de jurisprudência/precedentes' and warns against inventing citations, directing to use this tool instead. Also provides filtering advice based on user input, giving clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verificar_citacaoVerificar citação de jurisprudênciaARead-onlyInspect
Verifica se uma citação de jurisprudência brasileira (número de processo, acórdão ou tese) existe na base JuriBase de fontes oficiais. Use antes de apresentar qualquer citação ao usuário, ou quando o usuário fornecer uma citação para checar. Retorna CONFIRMADO (com os dados reais), DIVERGENCIA (existe, mas com dados diferentes), NAO_ENCONTRADO (verifiquei e não achei no escopo coberto) ou INDISPONIVEL (a base não pôde ser consultada agora — NÃO conclua que a citação não existe; tente novamente), mais o escopo coberto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| texto | Yes | a citação, número de processo ou trecho a verificar |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses all possible return values (CONFIRMADO, DIVERGENCIA, NAO_ENCONTRADO, INDISPONIVEL) and their meanings, complementing the annotations' readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. It also warns that INDISPONIVEL does not imply the citation does not exist.
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?
Description is well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by usage guidelines and return value definitions. Slightly wordy due to parenthetical explanations, but front-loaded and efficient.
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 has only one parameter and annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description covers all important aspects: return values, scope, and what to do in case of unavailability. Missing details like response format or example, but sufficient for a verification 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?
The input schema describes the 'texto' parameter as 'a citação, número de processo ou trecho a verificar', and the description adds no further value beyond restating the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3.
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?
Description clearly states the tool verifies if a Brazilian jurisprudence citation exists in the JuriBase, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'buscar_jurisprudencia' which likely searches rather than verifies.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use before presenting any citation to the user, or when the user provides a citation to check.' Also provides guidance on handling the INDISPONIVEL return value, telling the agent not to conclude non-existence.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!