easyjur_get_agenda
Read-onlyIdempotent
Busca um item de agenda por ID.
Bulk support: accepts agenda_ids for batched execution.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| agenda_id | Yes | ||
| agenda_ids | No |
EasyJur
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that it supports batch execution via 'agenda_ids', which is not captured by annotations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like error responses or lack of filtering options.
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 extremely short and to the point, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then mention the bulk feature. Every sentence contributes value, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a simple get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description should at least clarify what the response contains and how the 'query' parameter is used. It does not address these, leaving the agent with gaps in understanding. The bulk support mention is brief and lacks usage details. Overall, the description is minimal and insufficient for full operational clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'agenda_id' identifies the item and that 'agenda_ids' enables batched execution, giving meaning to two of three parameters. However, it completely ignores the 'query' parameter, leaving its purpose unexplained, so compensation is incomplete.
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 clearly states the action ('Busca um item de agenda') and the resource (agenda item) with the primary parameter (by ID). It distinguishes from the sibling 'easyjur_list_agenda' by indicating this is for fetching a specific item, not listing all. The verb 'Busca' and the phrase 'por ID' make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you have an ID and want a single agenda item. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'easyjur_list_agenda' for bulk listing. The bulk support note is useful but does not guide scenarios where to choose this over list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.