Skip to main content
Glama

Astrea (Aurum)

by io.github.mcp-dir
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

astrea_tarefa_criar

Cria uma TAREFA vinculada a um processo no Astrea.

  • case_id: id do processo (ver astrea_processos).

  • description: o que fazer.

  • due_date: opcional, prazo em ISO (ex.: 2026-07-10).

  • responsible_id: opcional, id do membro do escritório responsável (ver astrea_responsaveis). Se omitir, fica no usuário da integração e pode NÃO aparecer na agenda do advogado, que filtra pelo próprio responsável. Para a tarefa aparecer na agenda de alguém, passe o id dessa pessoa.

  • repeat: opcional, cria uma SÉRIE recorrente numa só chamada (semanal/mensal/etc.). Exige due_date (vira a 1ª ocorrência). Cada ocorrência é uma tarefa independente (edite/exclua individualmente com astrea_tarefa_editar/_excluir). Devolve task_id (o id da tarefa criada; na série, um por ocorrência) — guarde para editar/excluir depois.

Bulk support: accepts case_ids, responsible_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repeatNo
case_idYes
case_idsNo
due_dateNo
descriptionYes
responsible_idNo
responsible_idsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / repeat
      Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "frequency": {
+      "enum": [
+        "daily",
+        "weekly",
+        "monthly",
+        "yearly"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "interval": {
+      "default": 1,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "until": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "frequency"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / responsible_id
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / responsible_ids
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations are minimal generic false hints, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned task_id, the consequence of omitting responsible_id, the recurrence behavior (due_date becomes the first occurrence, and each occurrence is an independent task), and bulk execution support. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but well-structured, with the main purpose first and each parameter bullet adding non-obvious value. The recurrence warning, calendar-visibility caveat, and bulk note all earn their place. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, optional behavior, return value, and post-creation lifecycle well. The only notable gap is the bulk path: it says case_ids and responsible_ids are accepted, but does not describe the response shape for batched execution, such as whether an array of task_ids is returned.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly. Every parameter is given real meaning: case_id and responsible_id are cross-referenced to lookup tools, due_date has an ISO example, repeat explains its requirements and effects, and the array variants are explained as bulk execution. This is far beyond the bare schema.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cria uma TAREFA vinculada a um processo no Astrea.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from other creation tools like astrea_processo_criar or astrea_compromisso_criar. It also names related reference tools and the edit/delete siblings, so an agent can tell this tool apart from nearby alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides strong practical guidance: it explains how responsible_id affects calendar visibility, warns that omitting it may hide the task, and notes that repeat creates independent tasks that can later be edited/deleted via astrea_tarefa_editar/_excluir. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling creation tools like astrea_compromisso_criar, so it stops 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.

All Astrea (Aurum) toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources