Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to FREOA Verifica

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables Brazilian legal practitioners to search and verify case law, súmulas, and federal legislation against official sources, and to audit entire draft documents citation by citation with source provenance, collection dates, and verification status. Every response carries its own verification flag so a failed source lookup never silently becomes "no results", and citations blocked by anti-bot protections are returned as pending manual review with an official search link.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables querying Brazilian federal legislation from official Planalto, Câmara, and Senado sources, including article text, metadata, amendments, and revocation history. It also checks article-level validity by cross-referencing sources and flagging divergences.
      7
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables searching, reading, and citing Brazilian legislation from a local read-only corpus clone, with article-level retrieval, faceted counts, coverage gap checks, and signatory lookups.
      5
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Verifiable German, Austrian, Swiss and EU law: resolve citations to the wording in force, verify the citations a model produced against the official source, and walk the citation graph.
      -

    TDQS

    A3.6/5.0

    Scored across 13 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool has a distinct role in the pipeline (buscar → resolver → obter → historico → verificar → registro), and the descriptions explicitly state ordering and scope boundaries (e.g. verificar_citacao for a single citation vs verificar_texto for a whole draft; obter_decisao for jurisprudence vs obter_dispositivo for normative text). The main overlap is that buscar_legislacao already covers Planalto/CVM/BCB/Senado while buscar_normas_cvm and buscar_normas_bcb are source-specific near-duplicates, which an agent could misselect. Still, the specializations are explained, so confusion is limited.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Most names follow a Portuguese verb_noun pattern (obter_, buscar_, verificar_, resolver_, listar_) with a clear resource noun. Deviations are minor but real: 'historico_dispositivo' is noun-first rather than verb-first, and similar search operations use two different verbs ('buscar_legislacao'/'buscar_normas_cvm' vs 'pesquisar_jurisprudencia'). Readability remains high despite these inconsistencies.

    Tool Count4/5

    13 tools is within a healthy range and each maps to a real step in legal research and anti-hallucination verification. A slight redundancy exists in having both the general buscar_legislacao and the two dedicated CVM/BCB search tools, which could plausibly be folded into one parameterized search.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the full lifecycle: discovery (listar_fontes, pesquisar_jurisprudencia, buscar_legislacao), resolution and retrieval (resolver_citacao, obter_dispositivo, obter_decisao), provenance (obter_evidencia), history, verification (verificar_citacao, verificar_texto) and audit (obter_registro). Minor gaps: no explicit tool for comparing or exporting consolidated citations, and jurisprudence verification relies on obter_decisao plus evidence rather than a dedicated verify path.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessLimited data