Skip to main content
Glama

Legal MCP (alternativa ao Jusbrasil)

by io.github.mcp-dir

transparencia_despesas_documentos

Read-onlyIdempotent

Documentos de despesa (Empenho, Liquidação ou Pagamento) emitidos pelo Governo Federal para um favorecido (CPF/CNPJ) num ano, item-a-item: data, documento, espécie, valor, órgão, elemento de despesa e nº do processo. fase default = 3 (Pagamento, o dinheiro efetivamente pago). Só Executivo FEDERAL. Para o total agregado use transparencia_despesas_favorecido.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
anoNo
faseNo
paginaNo
cpf_cnpjYes
ordenacaoNo

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety is known. The description adds context about scope (Federal Executive only) but no additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is concise, front-loads main purpose, and provides key details in a few sentences without redundancy. Could be slightly more structured but overall efficient.

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?

Description lists returned fields and distinguishes from sibling, but lacks explanation of pagination and ordering parameters. Adequate for core functionality but missing some context for full usage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates by explaining cpf_cnpj, ano, and fase (with default). However, 'pagina' and 'ordenacao' parameters are not mentioned, leaving gaps.

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?

The description clearly states it lists expense documents (empenho, liquidação, pagamento) for a beneficiary, item-by-item, and distinguishes from the sibling tool for total aggregated data.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly mentions default phase value and directs to sibling tool for aggregate totals, providing clear usage context. Does not elaborate on when not to use, but the alternative is clearly stated.

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