Busca processos em um tribunal por classe, órgão julgador e/ou assunto (códigos das tabelas do CNJ), paginada e ordenada por data de ajuizamento. DataJud NÃO indexa nome de parte nem OAB — pra isso use o MCP djen/escavador.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| tribunal | Yes | ||
| sort_desc | No | ||
| classe_codigo | No | ||
| assunto_codigo | No | ||
| numero_processo | No | ||
| orgao_julgador_codigo | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that results are paginated and ordered by filing date, and that it does not index names. This adds useful context beyond annotations, though more details (e.g., rate limits) could be included.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and usage caveat, with no extraneous information.
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?
For a tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in schema, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive. It omits details about 'numero_processo' and return format, leaving some gaps for an agent.
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 mentions filtering by classe, orgao_julgador, assunto (códigos), and pagination/ordering, covering most parameters. However, 'numero_processo' is not explained, and parameter details are not exhaustive.
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 searches processes in a tribunal by class, judging body, and subject (CNJ codes), paginated and ordered by filing date, and explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling by stating what it does not index (party name/OAB).
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?
The description explicitly tells when not to use this tool ('DataJud NÃO indexa nome de parte nem OAB') and provides an alternative ('pra isso use o MCP djen/escavador'), giving clear usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose with clear descriptions. The DataJud-specific tools (datajud_*) are well-separated from platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.), and even similar tools like datajud_get_processo and datajud_movimentos are differentiated by their scope.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools are plain verbs (authenticate, connect), others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the datajud_ prefix is applied to a mix of noun and verb phrases (datajud_movimentos vs datajud_get_processo). This lacks a predictable pattern.
With 10 tools, the count is within the typical range for a server. However, the inclusion of generic platform tools alongside domain-specific DataJud tools slightly dilutes the focus, though each tool serves a distinct role.
The DataJud domain coverage is adequate for common operations (login, search, fetch details, movements, raw query). The platform tools also cover essential actions like marketplace management and bug reporting. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for listing available courts), but overall it's functional.