Lista Processos/litígios, visão consolidada do contencioso (OData /Litigations). 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?
The description expands on the read-only annotations by indicating this is an OData listing with filtering/pagination operations. It doesn't disclose pagination limits, response shape, or potential complexity of the consolidated view, but given the annotations already mark it as safe and idempotent, the additional context is modestly useful.
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 extremely concise: two compact sentences with no filler words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately gives the most useful operating hints, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.
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?
This is an 8-parameter listing tool with no output schema, yet the description does not specify return structure, pagination behavior, or required permissions. 'Visão consolidada' is only a vague indication of response shape, and the query object parameter is left completely unexplained.
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 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of parameter explanation. It names only five OData filtering/pagination parameters and offers no details on how to build filters, the meaning of the 'query' object, or the use of $select and $count, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 identifies the tool as listing lawsuits/litigations ("Lista Processos/litígios") and references the OData endpoint (/Litigations). It conveys the resource and a consolidated litigation view, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling legalone_get_litigations or legalone_list_lawsuits.
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 phrase "Lista Processos/litígios" implies this tool is used to list litigation records, and the mention of OData filtering options suggests how to refine the listing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/alternative guidance or exclusion of sibling tools, leaving the usage context implied rather than clearly structured.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.