Lists navigation failure events from the court's digital system, returning sanitized structural data to diagnose issues without exposing credentials, HTML, or free text.
Lê eventos estruturais sanitizados; nunca retorna HTML, NPU, credencial ou texto livre.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limite | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful sanitization guarantee—never returning HTML, NPU, credentials, or free text—which is not derivable from the annotations. It omits details like ordering or pagination, but still provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence. The first clause states the function and the second adds a relevant safety guarantee. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary structure.
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?
With one optional parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient for invocation. However, it leaves 'eventos estruturais' undefined and never mentions 'falhas' directly, so the agent cannot fully understand what the returned events represent. The sanitization guarantee helps, but the core resource remains vague.
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 one optional parameter, 'limite', with a default of 20 and 0% description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter or clarify whether it caps result count, page size, or a time window. Although the parameter name is fairly transparent, the description fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.
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 specifies a concrete action ('lê') and resource ('eventos estruturais sanitizados'), and adds a clear output boundary: it never returns HTML, credentials, or free text. However, it does not explicitly say 'falhas de navegação' or contrast with sibling tools, so the agent must infer the exact purpose from the tool name.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as status_navegacao_adaptativa or diagnosticar_ambiente. The description states what the tool does but does not provide conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help the agent select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.