Busca um(a) Usuários/responsáveis do escritório por id (OData /Users/{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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description isn't required to restate that. It adds value by mentioning the OData endpoint and $expand, but does not disclose behaviors like error handling, default fields, or pagination. With annotations covering safety, the description adds minor context, hence a 3.
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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes useful hints about OData and bulk execution without extra fluff. Slightly less structured than ideal, but effective.
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 there is no output schema, the description should clarify return shape, but it doesn't. It covers id/ids and $expand, but omits $select, query, and behavior for missing IDs or error cases. For a get-by-id tool, this is adequate but not thorough.
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 description should explain parameters. It only mentions 'id' and 'ids' for bulk, plus $expand for sub-resources. It does not explain 'query' or '$select' despite the schema having 5 parameters. The description partially compensates but leaves key parameters unexplained.
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 states a specific verb ('Busca' = search/get) and resource ('Users/responsáveis do escritório') with the OData endpoint (/Users/{id}), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list_users. It also notes the bulk variant via 'ids', so the purpose is 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 explicitly mentions using $expand for sub-resources and notes bulk execution via ids, giving context for parameter usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'list_users' tool or state when to prefer one over the other, though the id-based retrieval is implied. This is clear context without exclusions.
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.