Skip to main content
Glama

Legal MCP (alternativa ao Jusbrasil)

by io.github.mcp-dir

processos_buscar_por_nome

Read-onlyIdempotent

DESCOBERTA: busca processos pelo NOME de uma parte (pessoa ou empresa) raspando os portais públicos dos tribunais (ESAJ/PJe/eproc/Projudi) — o gap que datajud (só por número) e djen (OAB/advogado) não cobrem. É ASSÍNCRONO e lento: retorna { job_id }; chame processos_get_resultado(job_id) para obter a lista. Com os numero_cnj, use datajud_*/djen_* para enriquecer de graça.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nomeYes
platformsNo
tribunaisNo
max_resultsNo

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses asynchronous, slow operation, scraping behavior, and job_id return pattern. Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent; description adds context beyond annotations without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each adding value: purpose and differentiators, async behavior, enrichment suggestion. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers async behavior and integration with other tools, but lacks details on parameters beyond nome. For a tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description is sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for full correct invocation without further schema info.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Only 'nome' is explained (search by name), but 'platforms', 'tribunais', and 'max_results' are not described at all. The description leaves significant ambiguity about optional parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the tool searches for legal processes by party name (pessoa or empresa) scraping public court portals. Explicitly distinguishes from siblings datajud (by number) and djen (by OAB/lawyer), fulfilling specific verb+resource and sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use (search by name, covering a gap not met by datajud or djen) and how to use it asynchronously (call processos_get_resultado for results). Provides clear context and alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Legal MCP (alternativa ao Jusbrasil) toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency2/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Resources