Cria um processo. Obrigatórios: numero, id_advogado. (A API oficial não tem update — para registrar movimentação use easyjur_create_agenda vinculada ao processo.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| extra | No | ||
| numero | Yes | ||
| id_cliente | No | ||
| id_advogado | Yes | ||
| titulo_acao | No | ||
| id_contrario | No | ||
| outro_numero | No | ||
| tipo_processo | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only, and the description aligns with that. It adds a behavioral note about the absence of an update method and suggests an alternative for movements, which is useful. However, it does not describe success/error behavior, idempotency, or side effects beyond creation, though the annotations reduce the burden.
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?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences. It clearly states the purpose, lists required fields, and includes a practical caveat in parentheses. There is no redundancy or ambiguity, making it well-structured and easy to parse.
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?
The core action (create a process) is covered, and the caveat about update and agenda adds context. However, the description does not explain the full parameter set or return behavior, and it lacks details about the meaning of the process fields. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter explanations. It only lists the required parameters (numero, id_advogado) without defining them, and the optional parameters (id_cliente, titulo_acao, etc.) are not mentioned. Given the low coverage, this is insufficient to help an agent understand what values to provide.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Cria um processo' - Creates a process) and identifies the resource. It also distinguishes itself from other tools in the sibling list by explicitly mentioning required fields and providing a caveat about the lack of update functionality, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description provides some usage context by noting that the official API has no update and directing users to easyjur_create_agenda for registering movements. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list/get or other creation tools, though the verb 'Cria' implicitly indicates when to use it. The guidance about alternatives is helpful but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or sub-resource with clear CRUD actions. The easyjur_ tools are separated by entity (agenda, processo, pessoa, etc.) and by action (create, get, list), while sub-resource tools like easyjur_processo_partes or easyjur_agenda_comentarios have unambiguous scopes. Platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) serve disjoint meta-purposes, so no ambiguity.
Most easyjur_ tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_agenda, get_processo, list_despesas), but several break it with noun_subresource names (easyjur_agenda_comentarios, easyjur_processo_financeiros) and the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) use plain nouns without the prefix. This mixture of conventions makes the set less predictable.
47 tools is well above the threshold for a focused MCP server, even for a comprehensive legal management domain. The inclusion of platform meta-tools inflates the count, and many entities (agenda, processo) have multiple sub-resource readers. This volume risks overwhelming agents and slowing tool selection.
The tool surface provides create, get, and list for each entity, but there are no update or delete operations for any entity. Sub-resources (documentos, partes, mensagens, etc.) are read-only. The only workaround mentioned is creating agenda items to record movements, which is a workaround, not a real update. This is a significant gap that will cause dead ends for workflows requiring modification or removal.