Retrieve metadata and paginated extracted text from an official legal-document capture, returning delimited evidence for verifying provisions, wording, or citations.
Metadados da captura + texto extraído paginado (documento oficial delimitado).
max_chars máximo: 50.000.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| capture_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that results are paginated and that the document text is delimited, which is useful, but says nothing about what a 'captura' is, permission requirements, error behavior for invalid capture_id, or how metadata and text are combined in the response.
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?
The description is short and front-loads the content type, which is good. However, the second line duplicates the schema maximum for max_chars and adds no new information, so the space is not fully earned.
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?
Although an output schema exists (so return structure need not be explained), this is a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations. The description does not explain the required capture_id or the offset/max_chars contract, leaving key invocation details unaddressed.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so all three parameters depend on the description. The word 'paginado' hints at how offset and max_chars interact, but the max_chars sentence merely restates the schema maximum (50.000), and capture_id — the only required parameter — is entirely unexplained.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource (obter_evidencia) and describes the payload: capture metadata plus paginated extracted text from a delimited official document. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like obter_dispositivo or obter_decisao, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as obter_dispositivo or obter_decisao, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer applicability from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.