Find revoked or amended provisions of a Brazilian law by its URN-LEX, returning exact statutory references.
Lista os dispositivos não vigentes (revogados/alterados) de uma norma, pelo URN-LEX.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urn_lex | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the filtering behavior (only revoked/altered devices), but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or response/pagination details; the output schema may cover returns.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, object, and the key parameter with no filler or redundant restatements.
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?
For a simple one-parameter list operation with an output schema available, the description supplies the essential domain context. It could be more complete with usage caveats or a URN-LEX format hint, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for urn_lex, and the description partially compensates by saying the listing is performed 'pelo URN-LEX'. It does not explain the URN-LEX format or expected value, so meaning is only partially added beyond the parameter name.
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 names a specific verb ('Lista'), a clearly scoped resource ('dispositivos não vigentes (revogados/alterados) de uma norma'), and the lookup key ('pelo URN-LEX'), so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling search and get-device tools.
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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving non-current/revoked devices of a known norm identified by URN-LEX. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.