Checa AGORA se há novidade nos monitoramentos (sem esperar o ciclo automático). Passe watch_id para um específico, ou nada para checar todos. Atualiza o estado e retorna o que mudou.
Bulk support: accepts watch_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| watch_id | No | ||
| watch_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, the description states 'Atualiza o estado' (updates state), which contradicts the read-only claim. The description adds bulk support info but fails to resolve this inconsistency, leading to misleading behavioral expectations.
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?
Two sentences plus a line for bulk support, all front-loaded with key actions. No redundancy; every sentence adds value.
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?
No output schema, and the description only says 'returns what changed', which is vague. Prerequisites (e.g., existing monitors) are implied but not stated. Overall adequate but not complete for a new user.
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 has 0% description coverage, but the description explains 'watch_id' for specific and 'watch_ids' for batch, adding significant meaning. It does not detail parameter format or constraints, but coverage is adequate.
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 checks for novelties in monitoring immediately, distinguishing from the automatic cycle. It specifies usage for a specific watch_id or all monitors. Among siblings like 'legal_listar_monitoramentos' and 'legal_monitorar', this tool's purpose is distinct.
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 when to use (immediate check) and how to pass parameters (specific or all), but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. Usage context is clear but lacks explicit alternatives.
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.