Cria um monitoramento: avisa quando houver NOVIDADE — nova movimentação (numero_processo), novo processo de uma pessoa/empresa (nome/cnpj), ou nova publicação/intimação de uma OAB (oab+uf). Os alertas chegam pelo webhook do install (evento legal.movimentacao_nova); use legal_checar_novidades para checar na hora.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uf | No | ||
| oab | No | ||
| cnpj | No | ||
| nome | No | ||
| label | No | ||
| sigla_tribunal | No | ||
| intervalo_horas | No | ||
| numero_processo | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses that the tool creates a monitoring that sends alerts via webhook, adding behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). No hidden effects are missing.
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, front-loaded with purpose, but dense. Could be slightly more concise, but no redundancy.
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 three monitoring types and webhook event, but omits description of several parameters (label, sigla_tribunal, intervalo_horas) and doesn't mention that monitors can be listed/removed. Not fully complete for an 8-parameter 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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains the monitoring criteria (numero_processo, nome/cnpj, oab+uf) but does not cover all parameters like label, sigla_tribunal, intervalo_horas. Some meaning added, but incomplete.
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?
Description clearly states it creates a monitoring for new movements, processes, or publications, using specific parameters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like legal_checar_novidades (check immediately) and legal_listar_monitoramentos (list monitors).
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?
Explicitly says when to use this tool (to set up monitoring) and when to use legal_checar_novidades (to check immediately). Also describes how alerts are delivered (via webhook event). Provides clear context for usage.
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.