Lists jurisdictions for a chosen court degree (1g or 2g) to select one for acervo retrieval. Provide the degree to get options.
Lista as jurisdições do Acervo deste grau, para escolher uma em listar_acervo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grau | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grau | Yes | ||
| aviso | Yes | ||
| fonte | No | Acervo autenticado do PJe/TJPE | |
| jurisdicoes | Yes | ||
| capturado_em | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description's verb 'Lista' is the main behavioral signal and indicates a read-only operation on jurisdictions. It also adds the 'deste grau' scoping constraint, which is useful context, but it doesn't state that no data is modified or what the output contains (the latter is partly covered by the output schema).
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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the purpose clause. There is no redundant or filler content.
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, low-complexity list tool with an output schema, the essential purpose and workflow are present. However, because the required 'grau' parameter is undocumented and 'Acervo' is never defined, the description leaves the agent to guess about domain-specific meaning before calling listar_acervo.
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 provides only the enum values '1g'/'2g' with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description's phrase 'deste grau' weakly ties the parameter to the listing, but it never explains what the two grau values mean or how an agent should choose one, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 uses the specific verb 'Lista' with a specific resource, 'as jurisdições do Acervo deste grau,' and explains its downstream purpose: 'para escolher uma em listar_acervo.' This differentiates it from the sibling listar_acervo by naming it as the next step rather than the main listing tool.
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 description explicitly names the intended workflow context: call this tool before listar_acervo in order to pick a jurisdiction. It doesn't list alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.