Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FREOA Verifica

FREOA Verifica

by rickfreoa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

resolver_citacao

Resolves Brazilian normative citations into a work ID and path, verifying official sources and returning status so users can identify the cited work before retrieving the provision.

Instructions

Resolve uma citação normativa («art. 254-A da Lei 6.404/76») para work_id e caminho.

Cobre as obras de Planalto, CVM, BCB/CMN e Senado; captura a obra sob demanda. status: encontrada | ambigua | inexistente (negativa sustentada em fonte oficial) | indisponivel (não é inexistência) | formato_invalido. Use para identificar a obra antes de obter_dispositivo. Pode gravar cache local ao capturar a obra.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "citacao": "<citacao>"
    },
    "name": "resolver_citacao"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
citacaoYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does well: it names the covered sources (Planalto, CVM, BCB/CMN, Senado), discloses on-demand capture and the side effect "Pode gravar cache local ao capturar a obra", and defines the five status outcomes with the crucial distinction that 'indisponivel' is not the same as 'inexistente'. It omits auth/network requirements and rate or latency expectations for on-demand capture.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, input, and outputs; the status enumeration is dense but each value carries distinct meaning. Somewhat telegraphic pipe-delimited syntax, but no sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still contributes the domain context an agent needs: source coverage, capture-on-demand behavior, cache side effect, and the outcome taxonomy. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does by giving a concrete citation format example («art. 254-A da Lei 6.404/76»). It does not address the 4000-character limit or what happens with malformed input beyond naming the 'formato_invalido' status.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Resolve uma citação normativa") and the concrete outputs (work_id e caminho), plus a worked example of the citation format. It does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling verificar_citacao, so an agent cannot be fully sure which of the two to pick from the description alone.

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?

"Use para identificar a obra antes de obter_dispositivo" gives an explicit sequencing rule and names the downstream sibling, which is strong guidance. It stops short of exclusions — nothing says when to prefer verificar_citacao or what to do when the result is 'ambigua'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools