Busca um(a) Processos judiciais com os campos próprios do módulo (valor da causa, partes, pedidos) por id (OData /Lawsuits/{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.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds bulk support and $expand usage, but does not disclose response format or pagination behavior. With annotations covering the core traits, a 3 is appropriate.
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 concise, with two sentences covering the main purpose and bulk support. It is front-loaded with the primary action and endpoint. Slight lack of structure for parameter details, but overall efficient.
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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'query' object, $select, or how bulk ids work in detail. However, the core purpose and $expand usage are covered, making it minimally viable.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions id and $expand, but does not explain the 'query' object, $select, or the difference between id and ids. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for most parameters.
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 fetches a lawsuit by id with module-specific fields (valor da causa, partes, pedidos) via OData endpoint /Lawsuits/{id}. It distinguishes from siblings like legalone_list_lawsuits by specifying the by-id retrieval and $expand usage.
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 mentions using $expand for sub-resources and bulk support for batched execution, but does not explicitly contrast with list tools or provide when-to-use vs alternatives. It implies usage for single-record retrieval but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.