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 4.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Both tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for jurisprudence broadly, the other verifies a specific citation. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in Portuguese (buscar_jurisprudencia, verificar_citacao), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only 2 tools, the server feels slightly under-scoped for a domain that typically requires filtering, listing, or more advanced queries. However, it aligns with the server's focused 'verify' purpose.
The server covers search and verification, but lacks tools for managing court lists, detailed case retrieval by ID, or bulk operations. Minor gaps exist, but core workflows are supported.
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) ou NAO_ENCONTRADO, 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds the return statuses and that it checks 'JuriBase de fontes oficiais', but does not detail error handling or other behavioral traits. Moderate added value.
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 sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple input and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return types. Could elaborate on the return data structure for CONFIRMADO, 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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, with a clear description. The tool description provides no additional parameter insight beyond the schema, 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 verifies Brazilian jurisprudence citations against a database, lists possible return values (CONFIRMADO, DIVERGENCIA, NAO_ENCONTRADO), and distinguishes from the sibling tool through usage context.
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: 'antes de apresentar qualquer citação ao usuário' and when user provides a citation. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the sibling tool context implies it's for verification vs. search.
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!