Processos de execução penal no SEEU (Sistema Eletrônico de Execução Unificado do CNJ) por CPF, CNPJ, nome da parte ou número de processo. Retorna os processos encontrados (classe, distribuição, partes) e os detalhes do primeiro (informações gerais, movimentações). Informe ao menos um identificador.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpf | No | ||
| cnpj | No | ||
| nome_mae | No | ||
| nome_parte | No | ||
| numero_processo | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that only the first process has its details and movements returned, which is material to the caller.
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 concise: one sentence for what is searched, one for the return structure, and one for the required input condition. No wasted words, and the most actionable guidance is preserved.
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?
Even without an output schema, the description explains the main return pieces: class, distribution, parties, general information, and movements. It also covers the at-least-one-identifier rule. It could mention the role of 'nome_mae' or what happens when no process is found, but overall it is informative enough.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that CPF, CNPJ, name, and process number are accepted identifiers and that at least one is needed. However, it omits the 'nome_mae' parameter and gives no format, combination, or precedence rules, leaving some ambiguity.
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 that the tool searches criminal execution processes in SEEU by CPF, CNPJ, party name, or process number. It also specifies what is returned: found processes plus details of the first match, which distinguishes it from the other consultas_* siblings.
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?
It gives an explicit usage rule: inform at least one identifier. It also lists valid query identifiers, which is helpful. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but the SEEU-specific execution-process context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is relevant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.