DESCOBERTA por CPF: busca os processos da pessoa por NOME no Diário (DJEN), grátis. IMPORTANTE: CPF→nome não é dado público — informe o parâmetro nome (recomendado). Sem nome, só resolve se houver um broker pago configurado na plataforma; caso contrário retorna instrução pedindo o nome.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpf | Yes | ||
| nome | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: the tool is free but depends on name resolution, and without a name and paid broker it returns instructions. Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent and description adds valuable context.
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 with three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. However, the use of all caps and slight verbosity could be streamlined without losing 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?
Covers usage conditions well but lacks description of return values (what the tool outputs on success). Without an output schema, the agent needs to know the structure of returned processes. Also, no differentiation from siblings is provided.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the role of each parameter: 'cpf' is the identifier, 'nome' is recommended to resolve CPF to name, and why it is important. This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 the tool searches for legal processes by CPF using the person's name in DJEN, and emphasizes it is free. It distinguishes from CNPJ-based tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'djen_processos_por_parte'.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: use the 'nome' parameter when possible, explains failure modes (broker dependency) and fallback behavior. However, it lacks comparison to other search tools in the sibling list.
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.