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

mcp-legislacao-br

by wall-e-assessor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

conferir_vigencia

Cross-references Planalto, Câmara, and Senado for a specific legislative article, returns current source texts, compares wording, and flags divergences or unavailable sources.

Instructions

Cruza Planalto, Câmara e Senado para um artigo e aponta divergências.

Consulta ao vivo por padrão. Devolve o texto vigente de cada fonte, se as redações coincidem (comparação sem acentos, pontuação e notas de redação), o registro de alterações do Senado e os marcadores de fonte indisponível, quando houver.

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>",
      "tipo": "<tipo>",
      "numero": "<numero>",
      "ano": "<ano>"
    },
    "name": "conferir_vigencia"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
anoYes
tipoYes
artigoYes
numeroYes
url_planaltoNo
forcar_ao_vivoNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does much of it: it discloses the return shape (per-source current text, coincidence flag, Senate change log, unavailable-source markers) and the normalization rule used in comparison (accents, punctuation and drafting notes ignored). It does not cover failure behavior under live-network errors or any rate/permission constraints, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Purpose and cross-source scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with return details following in a compact second block. Slightly list-like, but every clause carries information, especially since no output schema exists.

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?

The description adequately covers the return contract in the absence of an output schema, which is valuable. However, for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the argument semantics (especially article/tipo formats and url_planalto) remain unexplained, so an agent could still mis-invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, and the description only partially compensates: 'Consulta ao vivo por padrão' explains forcar_ao_vivo's default. It says nothing about artigo/tipo/numero/ano formats (e.g., expected article string conventions, allowed tipo values) nor what url_planalto overrides, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it cross-references the article text across Planalto, Câmara and Senado and reports divergences. That implicitly separates it from single-source siblings (artigo_planalto, artigo_camara), though no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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 says the query is live by default, which hints at when the cached-vs-live path applies, but it never states when to prefer this cross-check over the per-source tools or what prerequisites (e.g., a known article identifier) are needed. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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