Skip to main content
Glama

obter_dispositivo

Retrieve exact statutory text of a specific Brazilian legal provision using its URN-LEX identifier and device path, ensuring accurate citations from federal legislation.

Instructions

Obtém o texto literal de um dispositivo específico.

``urn_lex`` é o identificador do documento (ex.:
'urn:lex:br:federal:constituicao:1988-10-05;1988') e ``dispositivo_path`` o
caminho do artigo (ex.: 'art_37', 'art_5_A'). Artigo de anexo leva o prefixo
do anexo ('anexo_art_1', 'anexo_ii_art_3'); anexo sem articulação (tabela,
quadro) é dispositivo de texto ('anexo_i', 'anexo_i_p2'...). O ADCT é
documento próprio ('urn:lex:br:federal:constituicao:1988-10-05;1988!adct').
Súmula (vinculante ou não) tem dispositivo único, de path 'enunciado'
('urn:lex:br:supremo.tribunal.federal:sumula:1963-12-13;1' é a Súmula 1).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urn_lexYes
dispositivo_pathYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and does add meaningful behavioral context: the tool returns 'texto literal' and defines how special document types (anexo, ADCT, súmula) map to dispositivo paths. It does not mention error behavior or side effects, but the operation is clearly a simple read.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by compact, necessary identifier details. Every sentence adds value and the examples are structured and readable without unnecessary prose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-required-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the identifier format, path conventions, and edge cases thoroughly. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema provides zero descriptions for the two parameters, so the description fully compensates by explaining the urn_lex format with a concrete example, defining dispositivo_path conventions, and covering special cases for anexo and súmula. This is exactly the compensation the rubric requires.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb (

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies the usage context clearly: call this tool when you already have a urn_lex and a dispositivo_path and need the literal text. It provides concrete conventions for constructing both arguments, but it never explicitly says when not to use it or points to a sibling alternative like pesquisar_norma.

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