Lista Processos judiciais com os campos próprios do módulo (valor da causa, partes, pedidos) (OData /Lawsuits). Filtre com $filter/$top/$skip/$orderby/$expand.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| $top | No | ||
| $skip | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| $count | No | ||
| $expand | No | ||
| $filter | No | ||
| $select | No | ||
| $orderby | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, making it safe. The description adds useful context about OData filtering and module-specific fields, but doesn't detail pagination or default limits beyond what annotations imply. With such annotations, the bar is lowered; the description covers the key behavioral aspects.
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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It could be more structured, but it is not verbose or padded. The OData reference is useful, but the sentence about filtering is somewhat generic and might be clearer with a concrete example.
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's complexity (8 parameters, OData operations), the description is minimal but sufficient to understand the basic function. It lacks details on default behavior, response format, or common use cases, but the output schema is absent, so some gaps remain. An average score is appropriate.
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?
The description mentions OData parameters but does not explain them individually. The schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but does not. It only lists the parameter names without clarifying their semantics or providing examples, leaving the agent to infer from the single OData mention.
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 it lists lawsuits with module-specific fields (e.g., value, parties, requests) and indicates it uses OData operations. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like legalone_get_lawsuits, which likely retrieves a single lawsuit, while this lists multiple.
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 implicitly communicates usage via OData parameters ($filter, $top, etc.) and that it's a listing operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over legalone_get_lawsuits, which seems redundant given the sibling context, but it is clear enough for an experienced agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.