Busca um(a) Documentos (GED) por id (OData /Documents/{id}). Use $expand para sub-recursos.
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| $expand | No | ||
| $select | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds OData endpoint context, bulk execution support, and the $expand capability—information beyond the annotations that clarifies the tool's behavior 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds expand and bulk notes efficiently, avoiding unnecessary detail.
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?
Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential retrieval behavior (by id, bulk, expand) but omits $select and query usage. For a get-by-id tool, it is fairly complete, though the missing query semantics slightly reduce 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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters. It clarifies 'id' and 'ids' (bulk) and $expand, but leaves '$select' and 'query' undefined. The schema shows required id and types, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing coverage, earning a mid-range score.
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 'Busca um(a) Documentos (GED) por id' (search a document by id) with the OData endpoint, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_documents by focusing on id-based retrieval. It also mentions bulk support, making the tool's single/batch retrieve purpose unambiguous.
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?
It guides the use of $expand for sub-resources and notes bulk support via 'ids', which informs the agent when and how to pass multiple ids. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling list_documents or state when not to use it, leaving some implicit inference from the name and context.
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.
The core legalone_get/list/create/update tools are clearly separated by entity and verb, so common lookups are easy to pick. However, legalone_odata_get and legalone_request duplicate the named CRUD surface, lawsuits vs litigations are near-synonyms in a legal context, and connect/toolkit_info/authenticate have overlapping connection/status duties. Descriptions help resolve most cases, but several tool pairs could still be misselected.
The majority of tools follow a consistent legalone_<verb>_<entity> pattern, which is good. But auxiliary tools break the pattern: legalone_customfield_options, legalone_odata_get, legalone_request, legalone_metadata, authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info use bare verbs, nouns, or platform-infrastructure names. The result is mixed conventions that remain readable but are not consistent across the whole set.
With 45 tools, this set is well beyond the 3–15 well-scoped range and above the 25-tool threshold for too many. Many tools are repetitive CRUD variants per entity, plus several infrastructure and marketplace tools that inflate the agent's selection space. A smaller entity-focused set plus one generic OData escape hatch would have covered virtually the same functionality.
Core legal entities like lawsuits, litigations, contacts, appointments, tasks, and updates have create/get/list/update coverage. However, documents, users, areas, service types, and custom field definitions lack named update/delete helpers, and no entity has a dedicated delete tool. The generic legalone_request/odata_get escape hatches fill these gaps, but the lifecycle coverage is uneven.