DESCOBERTA por CNPJ: resolve o CNPJ em razão social (e sócios) e busca os processos por NOME no Diário (DJEN) — grátis, com número de processo completo. Opcionalmente inclui os processos dos sócios. Com os números, enriqueça com as tools datajud.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cnpj | Yes | ||
| incluir_socios | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by explaining the resolution and search steps. It could mention limitations like invalid CNPJ handling, but overall consistent.
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 a single dense sentence that packs key information. It is front-loaded with the action, though slightly verbose. Could be broken into two sentences for clarity.
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 no output schema and low param coverage, the description provides a good overview of functionality and usage flow. It does not specify return format or pagination, but is adequate for a search 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 0%, but the description implicitly covers both parameters: 'resolve o CNPJ' for cnpj and 'opcionalmente inclui os processos dos sócios' for incluir_socios, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 it resolves CNPJ to company name and partners, then searches for processes by name in the Diário (DJEN). It distinguishes from siblings like cnpj_consultar and processos_buscar_por_documento.
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 indicates the tool is free and provides complete process numbers, with a suggestion to enrich with datajud tools. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but context is clear.
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.
There is substantial overlap among the process-discovery tools: cnpj_processos, cpf_processos, djen_processos_por_parte, processos_buscar_por_nome, processos_buscar_por_documento, and legal_dossie all lead to finding the same kind of case by party/document, differing mainly by backend and sync/async details. The verbose descriptions mitigate the confusion, but an agent still has to reason through several competing entry points with unclear boundaries.
The set uses domain prefixes and snake_case, but mixes English and Portuguese action verbs (djen_search_comunicacoes vs. djen_processos_por_parte; processos_get_resultado vs. processos_buscar_por_nome) and includes bare-noun names like cnpj_processos, legal_dossie, and transparencia_pep. Platform/utility tools (connect, marketplace, show_version) use a different English naming style, so no single pattern is followed.
30 exposed tools exceeds the scale's heavy threshold and the count is inflated by platform/admin/marketplace meta-tools as well as multiple near-redundant discovery backends. A more scoped legal server could merge the process-finding variants and keep the utility/marketplace features separate.
The server covers a lot of ground—company/CPF data, DJEN and portal discovery, jurisprudence full text, monitoring, transparency, PEP, and sanctions—but there is no native current-case-status/movimentaçoes tool, and the descriptions repeatedly tell agents to enrich with datajud_* tools that are not exposed directly in this list. That is a significant workflow gap for a tool advertised as an alternative to Jusbrasil.