Extracts and verifies legal citations in Brazilian texts, checking whether quoted passages are literal, provisions exist, and wording was in force on a given date.
Extrai e verifica citações do texto (anti-alucinação).
Limites: texto ≤ 100.000 caracteres; até 200 citações. Pode gravar cache local.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| texto | 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, and it does add two genuine behavioral facts absent from the schema: the 100k-character and 200-citation limits, and that it 'pode gravar cache local' (may write a local cache). It still omits permissions, whether the cache write is consequential, and failure behavior when limits are exceeded.
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?
Two tight sentences/sections with the core purpose front-loaded and limits promptly stated. No filler; marginally hurt by the terseness that leaves 'data' and sibling differentiation unaddressed.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and limits plus cache behavior are covered. Still incomplete: the required-vs-optional role of 'data' is opaque and the overlap with the sibling verificar_citacao is unresolved, which matters for correct selection.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate: it documents a constraint on 'texto' (≤100,000 characters, matching the schema maxLength) but says nothing about the optional 'data' parameter, whose purpose and expected format are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: it extracts and verifies citations from a supplied text, framed as an anti-hallucination check. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'verificar_citacao', which sounds near-identical, so an agent cannot confidently choose between them from the text alone.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as verificar_citacao (single citation) or resolver_citacao. The anti-hallucination framing implies a context, but the agent must infer that this tool is for whole-document checking rather than one citation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.