Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FREOA Verifica

FREOA Verifica

by rickfreoa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

verificar_citacao

Verifies a legal citation against an official captured source, checking identity, wording, date validity, and support before you cite a provision or passage.

Instructions

Verifica uma citação normativa contra captura oficial, nas dimensões identity, text, temporal e support.

verified só com documento oficial capturado, hash e confronto efetivo; nunca «juridicamente correto». Outros estados: unknown (a regra não decide), ambiguous, unavailable (fonte falhou; não é inexistência), not_found. support permanece not_assessed; proposicao é apenas ecoada. modo: literal | normalizado. Use antes de citar um dispositivo ou trecho. Não verifica decisões judiciais: para elas, obter_decisao. Pode gravar cache local.

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": "verificar_citacao"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
modoNoliteral
trechoNo
citacaoYes
proposicaoNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does so: it defines the outcome state machine (verified, unknown, ambiguous, unavailable, not_found), clarifies that unavailable means source failure rather than non-existence, states that support stays not_assessed and proposicao is only echoed, warns that 'verified' never means 'juridically correct', and discloses the local-cache write side effect.

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 core action is front-loaded in sentence one, followed by state semantics, then usage and exclusions. Every clause carries non-obvious information; nothing restates the tool name or the schema.

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-shape detail is unnecessary; the description supplies the state vocabulary an agent needs to interpret results, an explicit sibling handoff, and the cache side effect. The only residual gap is the undocumented data/trecho parameters, which is a minor omission for a verification tool.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains modo (literal | normalizado) and the passive role of proposicao, but leaves data and trecho undefined and says nothing about how citacao is parsed or how trecho interacts with the literal/normalizado modes.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Verifica uma citação normativa contra captura oficial') and enumerates the four verification dimensions (identity, text, temporal, support). It also draws a bright line against the sibling obter_decisao by declaring that judicial decisions are out of scope, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use antes de citar um dispositivo ou trecho') and an explicit exclusion plus alternative target ('Não verifica decisões judiciais: para elas, obter_decisao'). This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern in full.

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