mcp-pje-trf1

by cmsdutra

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action: process metadata, document listing, single download, bulk download, auth status, and authentication. There is no overlap in purpose; even the two baixar tools are clearly differentiated by scope (one vs. all).
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern in Portuguese (consultar_processo, listar_documentos, baixar_documento, baixar_inteiro_teor, autenticar). The exception is status_autenticacao, which is noun_noun, a minor deviation from the otherwise consistent verb-first style.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is well-scoped for a PJe document access server. Each tool serves a necessary step in the workflow—authentication, status check, process lookup, document listing, and download—without unnecessary redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle needed for the server's purpose: authenticate, verify authentication, retrieve process metadata, list documents, download a single document, and download all documents. No critical operation is missing for its stated domain.
Average 3.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals a meaningful behavioral trait: it preserves the original file when available. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose authentication needs, error behaviors, or side effects. The single nuance is helpful but incomplete for a tool operating on legal documents.
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 sentence that conveys purpose and a key behavior. It is concise and free of filler, earning every word.
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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not cover authentication requirements, output format, or the meaning of parameters, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently in real scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameter names or meanings. The required parameters (numero_processo, grau, documento_id) are undocumented, and the optional diretorio_destino is not explained. The description's reference to 'processo' and 'documento' provides only general context, not parameter-level semantics.
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 action ('Baixa') and the resource ('documento acessível do processo'), and adds a distinguishing detail about preserving the original file. It is specific enough to differentiate from siblings like baixar_inteiro_teor, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as listar_documentos or baixar_inteiro_teor. The description does not mention prerequisites like authentication, which is a notable omission given the sibling tool autenticar.
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 must carry the behavioral burden. It only discloses that the tool requires an authenticated session, but does not state whether it is read-only, side-effect free, or describe return format or error conditions.
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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient but may be too sparse for the missing schema context.
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?
With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete for this tool. It fails to mention what metadata is returned or how to format the parameters, though the tool is relatively simple.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. While the schema defines 'grau' with an enum and 'numero_processo' as a string, no additional meaning is provided, leaving the agent to infer format and purpose.
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 explicitly states 'Consulta metadados de processo' (queries process metadata) for PJe TRF1, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'listar_documentos' and 'baixar_documento' which focus on documents.
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 via the query verb but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The phrase 'acessível à sessão autenticada' indicates an authentication prerequisite but no exclusions or comparison with sibling tools.
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 burden. It mentions creating an exclusive directory and manifest.json, which is useful, but omits critical behavioral details such as authentication requirements, error handling for inaccessible documents, whether the directory is overwritten, or any rate limits. The description gives a brief high-level effect but not enough for safe invocation.
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 sentence with no fluff, immediately stating the action and output. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, wasting no words.
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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain the meaning of grau, the optional diretorio_destino, what manifest.json contains, or any prerequisites like authentication. The existence of sibling tools (e.g., baixar_documento) is not leveraged to clarify boundaries, leaving the overall context incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (numero_processo, grau, diretorio_destino). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify the meaning of 'grau' (degree/instance) or the role of diretorio_destino, leaving the agent to guess. No compensation for low schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool downloads all accessible documents from a process and generates a manifest.json file. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like baixar_documento (singular download) and listar_documentos (listing) by focusing on bulk download.
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 usage context is implied: use this when you need all accessible documents from a process, as opposed to baixar_documento for a single document. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or direct comparison with alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries a heavy transparency burden. It does disclose that results are filtered by the authenticated session's access, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not describe the return format (metadata vs. content), pagination, ordering, or error 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?
A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and includes the essential access constraint. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary repetition.
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?
Although the tool is simple, the description leaves out return-value details and fully explains neither the parameters nor the authentication flow. Without annotations or an output schema, this is under-specified for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to either 'numero_processo' or 'grau'. It fails to explain that 'grau' likely represents court instance (1 or 2) or the format expected for 'numero_processo'. Parameter names alone are insufficient for a Portuguese legal context.
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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') with a clear resource ('documentos do processo') and scope ('acessíveis à sessão autenticada'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like baixar_documento, which downloads a specific document, and consultar_processo, which presumably retrieves process data.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, relationship to authentication tools, or when not to use it. The context is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'sem expor cookies ou tokens' (without exposing cookies or tokens), and uses 'parece válida' to indicate a heuristic check. However, it omits other traits like side effects, network use, or how 'grau' influences behavior, providing only partial 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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action ('Informa') and includes essential scope. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple status tool, the description covers the primary purpose and a safety trait, but it is incomplete due to the unexplained 'grau' parameter and lack of clarifications on the output format or what constitutes a 'valid' session. The absence of an output schema heightens the need for more detail, which is not provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'grau' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The enum values '1' and '2' are undefined, leaving the agent with no guidance on what this parameter controls. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of information.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Informa se há storageState salvo e se a sessão parece válida' (reports whether there is saved storageState and if the session seems valid). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'autenticar' by focusing on status rather than creation. The additional 'sem expor cookies ou tokens' further clarifies its scope.
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 as a preliminary check before authenticated operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings such as 'autenticar' or 'consultar_processo'. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the usage context implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 that the tool opens a visible Chromium window and saves storageState, which is a side effect. It also explicitly discloses what the tool does NOT do (automate credentials, MFA, CAPTCHA, certificate). This is good transparency, though it omits details like storage location or prerequisites.
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 concise, consisting of exactly two sentences that deliver the essential information: what the tool does and what it does not do. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action followed by limitations. No unnecessary filler.
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?
The tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core behavior well, but it omits explanation of the 'grau' parameter, which is a significant gap for correct invocation. It also lacks context on how this fits with sibling tools (e.g., that it should precede data access tools), but given the tool's simplicity, the description is minimally adequate yet incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention the only parameter, 'grau', at all. The schema has an enum of '1' or '2' with a default, but no description of what these values mean. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it fails to provide any semantic meaning, leaving the agent guessing about the parameter's purpose.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Abre Chromium visível para autenticação manual e salva storageState' (opens visible Chromium for manual authentication and saves storageState). It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on authentication, not queries or downloads. The negative statement about not automating credentials/MFA/CAPTCHA/certificate adds further clarity.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when manual authentication is needed, as opposed to automated. It explicitly excludes automating credentials, MFA, CAPTCHA, or certificates, which signals when not to rely on this tool for automated flows. However, it does not name specific alternatives among sibling tools, so it stops short of full guidance.
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:

[![trf1-pje-mcp-bridge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cmsdutra/trf1-pje-mcp-bridge/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cmsdutra/trf1-pje-mcp-bridge)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![trf1-pje-mcp-bridge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cmsdutra/trf1-pje-mcp-bridge/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cmsdutra/trf1-pje-mcp-bridge)

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/cmsdutra/trf1-pje-mcp-bridge'

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