Busca SÚMULAS (incluindo vinculantes) por termo. Atalho do jurisprudencia_buscar com tipo=Súmula. Quando o texto completo do enunciado está disponível ele vem na ementa, e enunciado cancelado/revogado é marcado no próprio texto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | ||
| termo | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond those by explaining that full enunciado text appears in the ementa when available and that canceled/revoked enunciados are marked in the text itself. This is useful behavioral context not present in the structured fields.
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 compact: three sentences, each earning its place. The main purpose is front-loaded, the sibling relationship is explicit, and the behavioral note is concise. Minor structure loss because there is no section separation, but overall it is efficient.
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?
With no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description must carry the full context burden. It explains one result nuance (ementa text and revocation marking) but does not describe the response shape, pagination, max behavior, or what happens when full text is unavailable. The tool is simple, but key operational details are missing.
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 for the bare schema. It only clarifies 'termo' indirectly through 'por termo' and says nothing about 'max' — its behavior, default, or limits. This leaves the optional parameter essentially undocumented from the agent's perspective.
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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Busca SÚMULAS (incluindo vinculantes) por termo'. It also identifies itself as a specialized shortcut of jurisprudencia_buscar with a fixed tipo=Súmula, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search tool.
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 positions the tool as 'Atalho do jurisprudencia_buscar com tipo=Súmula', giving the agent a clear cue for when to select it. It does not spell out when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide correct selection.
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.