PJE MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: configuration tools (pje_configurar, pje_configurar_certificado, pje_status), information tools (pje_info_certificado, pje_listar_certificados), and data retrieval tools (pje_buscar_processo, pje_listar_processos, pje_listar_assuntos, pje_listar_classes, pje_listar_orgaos_julgadores). The descriptions clearly differentiate their functions, eliminating any ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'pje_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case, with verbs like 'buscar', 'configurar', 'listar', 'info', and 'status' consistently applied. This predictable naming convention makes it easy to understand each tool's function at a glance.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, this server is well-scoped for its judicial process domain. The count covers essential areas like configuration, certificate management, and data listing/searching without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear purpose that justifies its inclusion.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for configuration, certificate management, and data retrieval (searching and listing processes, classes, subjects, and judicial bodies). A minor gap exists in update/delete operations for processes or configurations, but core workflows for querying and setup are well-covered.
Average 3/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it lists with optional filters. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when filters are omitted. For a list tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient Portuguese sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a basic list operation, though it could be more front-loaded with critical context given the lack of annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'processos' means in this context, what the output looks like, error conditions, or how pagination works. The agent lacks necessary context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'filtros opcionais' which aligns with the 'filter' parameter but doesn't provide additional context about filter syntax, page/size defaults, or practical usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Lista processos com filtros opcionais' clearly states the action (list) and resource (processes), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pje_buscar_processo' (which likely also searches/filters processes). It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what kind of processes or system context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions optional filters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pje_buscar_processo'. There's no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool configures a connection but doesn't explain what this entails—whether it's a one-time setup, if it persists across sessions, what permissions are required, or potential side effects. This is inadequate for a configuration tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, concise sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what the configuration does, how it affects other tools, or what success/failure looks like. For a tool that likely sets up critical API connections, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('baseUrl' and 'appName'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the purpose of 'appName' or providing examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Configura a conexão com o PJE' clearly states the tool configures a connection to PJE, which is a specific action. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'pje_configurar_certificado' (which configures certificates specifically) or explain what type of connection is being configured, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing this configuration before using other PJE tools), exclusions, or clarify its role relative to siblings like 'pje_configurar_certificado', leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'shows information' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify what information is shown, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or what happens if no certificate is configured. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness for other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is inadequate for a tool that presumably returns certificate information. The description doesn't explain what information is returned, in what format, or what 'configured certificate' means in context. For a tool that likely provides system configuration information, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Mostra informações sobre o certificado configurado' states what the tool does (shows information about the configured certificate) but is vague about scope and specificity. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'pje_listar_certificados' or 'pje_configurar_certificado', leaving ambiguity about whether this shows a single configured certificate or lists multiple certificates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'pje_listar_certificados' (likely lists all certificates) and 'pje_configurar_certificado' (likely configures certificates), there's no indication of when this specific info tool is appropriate versus those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Configura' implies a write/mutation operation that likely changes system state, but the description doesn't specify whether this is persistent, reversible, requires admin privileges, affects other operations, or has side effects. It mentions authentication but doesn't clarify what gets configured (client settings, session, system-wide). Significant behavioral gaps remain.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a configuration tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after configuration (success indicators, error conditions), whether configuration persists across sessions, or how this interacts with other PJE tools. The description alone leaves too many operational questions unanswered given the tool's complexity and lack of supporting structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general purpose of configuring certificate authentication. It doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., pfxPath/pfxPassword vs certificateThumbprint/certificateSubject as alternative approaches) or usage constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Configura autenticação por certificado digital' clearly states the action (configures) and resource (digital certificate authentication). It distinguishes from siblings like pje_configurar (general configuration) and pje_info_certificado (certificate information) by focusing specifically on authentication setup. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what system or context this configuration applies to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a certificate file or Windows certificate store access), when this configuration is required versus other authentication methods, or how it relates to siblings like pje_listar_certificados (which might show available certificates). Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action ('listar') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, or requires authentication. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient phrase ('Lista órgãos julgadores') that directly states the purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling, which are essential for an agent to use this tool effectively in context with siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Lista órgãos julgadores' (Lists judging bodies) clearly states the action (list) and resource (judging bodies), but it's vague about scope or format. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'pje_listar_processos' or 'pje_listar_classes', which also list different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Lista') but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the list returns. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient phrase ('Lista assuntos processuais') that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'assuntos processuais' are, how the list is structured, or any behavioral aspects like safety or performance. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is unnecessary here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema handles all parameter documentation, and no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Lista assuntos processuais' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('assuntos processuais'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pje_listar_classes' or 'pje_listar_orgaos_julgadores', which appear to be similar list operations for different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for use, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'pje_listar_processos' or 'pje_buscar_processo', leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('Lista classes processuais') without any information on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient phrase ('Lista classes processuais') that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'classes processuais' are, how the listing is formatted, or any behavioral traits like safety or performance. For a tool in a legal context with sibling tools, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool, though it doesn't provide extra context about implicit inputs or defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Lista classes processuais' clearly states the action (list) and resource (procedural classes), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pje_listar_assuntos' or 'pje_listar_orgaos_julgadores' that also list different types of entities, so it doesn't fully distinguish its scope from similar operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling listing tools (e.g., 'pje_listar_assuntos', 'pje_listar_processos'), but the description doesn't explain when to choose this one over others or any prerequisites for its use, leaving the agent without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches for a specific process by ID but doesn't describe what happens if the ID isn't found, whether authentication is required, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information (search process by ID). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns process data. It doesn't explain what information is returned, error conditions, or system-specific behaviors (PJE context). For a lookup operation, users need to know what to expect in response, which is missing here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds that the search is 'por ID' (by ID), which aligns with the single 'id' parameter in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter already has a description 'ID do processo'), the description provides minimal additional semantic value beyond what's in the structured schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Busca um processo específico por ID' clearly states the action (busca/search) and resource (processo/process) with specificity about the ID parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'pje_listar_processos' by focusing on individual lookup rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the system (PJE) which could provide additional context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to find a specific process by its ID, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'pje_listar_processos' for browsing or other search methods. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what 'list' entails—e.g., format of the output, whether it includes all certificates or filtered ones, or any system dependencies. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to understand at a glance, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate as a basic overview. However, it lacks details on output format or behavioral context, which could be helpful for an agent to interpret results, making it minimally viable but with room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, as there are no parameters to explain. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Lista' (lists) and the resource 'certificados digitais disponíveis no Windows' (digital certificates available in Windows), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pje_info_certificado', which might provide detailed information about a specific certificate rather than listing them all.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'pje_info_certificado' or other sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where listing certificates is appropriate, leaving usage decisions unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool verifies status, implying a read-only, diagnostic operation, but doesn't detail what 'status' includes (e.g., connectivity, configuration validity), potential errors, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 a single, clear sentence in Portuguese: 'Verifica o status da configuração e conexão do PJE.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or usage context. For a diagnostic tool, more information on what 'status' entails would improve completeness, but it meets the basic requirement for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Verifica o status da configuração e conexão do PJE' (Verifies the status of PJE configuration and connection). It uses specific verbs ('verifica') and resources ('configuração e conexão do PJE'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'pje_configurar' or 'pje_configurar_certificado', which might handle configuration tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after configuration), exclusions, or how it differs from siblings like 'pje_info_certificado' (which might check certificate info). Without such context, users must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![pje-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chapirousIA/pje-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chapirousIA/pje-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![pje-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chapirousIA/pje-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chapirousIA/pje-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/chapirousIA/pje-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server