Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-legislacao-br

mcp-legislacao-br

by wall-e-assessor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

artigo_planalto

Retrieve the text of a specific article from Brazilian federal legislation on Planalto by URL or norm type, number, and year, including current wording or revoked passages when requested.

Instructions

Texto de um artigo no Planalto (caput, parágrafos, incisos e alíneas).

Identifique a norma por url do planalto.gov.br ou por tipo (lei, lei_complementar, decreto_lei, decreto, medida_provisoria, constituicao, emenda_constitucional), numero e ano. artigo aceita "319", "1.015", "12-A". Por padrão devolve só a redação vigente (sem os trechos tachados); incluir_revogado=true devolve também a redação antiga marcada.

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": {
      "artigo": "<artigo>"
    },
    "name": "artigo_planalto"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
anoNo
urlNo
tipoNo
artigoYes
numeroNo
forcar_ao_vivoNo
incluir_revogadoNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose one important trait: by default only the current wording is returned, and `incluir_revogado=true` also returns struck-through repealed text. It says nothing about error behavior for a non-existent article, about scraping/live-fetch implications, or about what the returned structure looks like, leaving meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with what is returned, then how to identify the norm, then the default-vs-repealed behavior. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, and nothing is padded or redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a seven-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers identification and the revoked-text flag adequately. It still leaves `forcar_ao_vivo` undefined and gives no sense of the response shape beyond a parenthetical list of section types, so an agent cannot fully predict the result or failure modes.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for five of seven parameters: it supplies the seven allowed `tipo` values that the schema leaves as a bare string, gives format examples for `artigo` ("319", "1.015", "12-A"), and explains `url` as an alternative to `tipo`/`numero`/`ano` and the effect of `incluir_revogado`. `forcar_ao_vivo` is never mentioned, leaving a cache-bypass flag unexplained.

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?

The description names the resource precisely: the text of a single article from Planalto, broken down into caput, parágrafos, incisos and alíneas, which distinguishes it from a whole-norm retriever like texto_planalto. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as artigo_camara or buscar_legislacao, so an agent must infer the split from names alone.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives concrete guidance on how to identify the norm (by `url` or by the triple `tipo`/`numero`/`ano`), which is real usage instruction. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over texto_planalto (full norm) or artigo_camara (same article, different source), and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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