Busca em diários oficiais MUNICIPAIS (milhares de prefeituras) por termo/nome — útil pra menções fora do Judiciário: licitações, nomeações, contratos, sanções municipais. Complementa o DJEN (que é judicial). Cada resultado traz trechos (excerpts) + URL do diário. Para nome exato, use aspas no termo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| termo | Yes | ||
| data_fim | No | ||
| data_inicio | No | ||
| territory_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it searches municipal gazettes (scope) and returns excerpts/URLs (output format). No contradictions; provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, include examples and a usage tip. No wasted words.
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?
The description adequately covers purpose and output format (excerpts + URL), but lacks parameter explanations for 4 of 5 parameters. With no output schema, more detail on response fields would improve completeness.
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 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only explains 'termo' (required) and suggests using quotes. It does not explain 'size', 'data_fim', 'data_inicio', or 'territory_ids', leaving significant gaps.
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 municipal official gazettes for terms/names, provides concrete examples (bids, appointments, contracts, sanctions), and distinguishes it from DJEN (judicial). It also notes output includes excerpts and URLs.
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 gives context: useful for non-judicial mentions, complements DJEN. It advises using quotes for exact names. However, it does not explicitly compare to other sibling tools like 'processos_buscar_por_nome' or state when not to use it.
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.