Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
copom-mcp

copom-mcp

by FelipeYabiko
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Ler uma ata do Copom

ler_ata
Read-only

Retrieve Copom meeting minutes text organized by section and paragraph, including the interest rate decision, to analyze monetary policy discussions.

Instructions

Devolve o texto de uma ata, organizado por seção e parágrafo, com a decisão de juros da reunião.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "reuniao": "<reuniao>"
    },
    "name": "ler_ata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
secaoNoTrecho do título da seção, para ler só ela
reuniaoYesNúmero da reunião. Ex.: 281

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
secoesYes
reuniaoYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful context about the return structure (section/paragraph organization and interest-rate decision), but it does not discuss error behavior, permissions, or retrieval limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It efficiently states the resource, the output organization, and the key content included.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values in detail. It adequately states the content and structure of the result, though it would be stronger with guidance on how this differs from buscar_atas.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for 'reuniao' or 'secao', so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: it returns the text of a meeting minute, organized by section and paragraph, including the interest-rate decision. This is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from the sibling buscar_atas, which likely also deals with minutes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus buscar_atas or analise_reuniao. The required 'reuniao' parameter implies retrieving a specific meeting's minutes, but the description gives no exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools