tribunais_cobertosLists courts with complete forensic calendars and verified years to check deadline coverage; for other courts, calculations use only national holidays and return warnings.
Lista os tribunais com calendário forense completo (portarias, comarcas, feriados municipais) e os anos conferidos. Nos demais, os cálculos usam só os feriados nacionais e avisam.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the coverage boundary and the fallback semantics (national holidays only, with a warning) that govern downstream calculations — information an agent cannot get from the annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the positive case (covered courts) followed by the negative/fallback case, with no filler. The phrasing 'anos conferidos' is slightly compressed and could be more explicit about what a 'verified year' means, but nothing is wasted.
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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies what matters: the scope of the list, the components of a 'complete calendar', the notion of verified years, and the consequence when a court is absent. An agent can call it and interpret the result without further context.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description has no parameter semantics to clarify. Nothing in the text misdescribes the inputs, and the schema fully specifies the empty object.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Lista os tribunais com calendário forense completo') and scopes it with what is included (portarias, comarcas, feriados municipais) plus the verified years. It is clearly distinct from siblings like 'feriados' or 'calcular_prazo', though it never names an alternative to contrast with.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the second sentence explains that for uncovered courts the calculations fall back to national holidays only and warn the user, which hints this is a coverage-check tool to consult before relying on deadline math. There is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'do not use this for…' instruction, and no sibling is named as the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.