legalone_create_updates
Cria um(a) Andamentos/publicações/atualizações do processo (OData POST /Updates). data = corpo da entidade conforme a API oficial.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
LegalOne
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is covered. The description adds almost zero behavioral context beyond the action itself: no mention of required auth, side effects, duplication semantics, response behavior, or constraints; 'conforme a API oficial' deflects rather than explains.
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?
One concise sentence conveys purpose, endpoint, and the main parameter. No fluff or redundancy; the description is easy to parse and front-loaded around the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A free-form object parameter and no output schema place a huge burden on the description to explain what data should look like, but it only references the official API vaguely. The tool does not explain expected fields, response shape, potential errors, or how to build valid requests, leaving the agent without sufficient context for safe invocation.
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?
The schema provides only a raw 'data' object with additionalProperties and 0% description coverage. The description merely says 'data = corpo de entidade conforme o API oficial', which gives no concrete field names, required properties, or structural guidance. It barely compensates for the schema coverage gap.
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?
The description clearly states the tool creates a process update ('Cria um(a) Andamentos/publicações/atualizações do processo') and identifies the underlying endpoint as OData POST /Updates. This definitively distinguishes the resource type from sibling create_* tools (appointments, contacts, lawsuits, etc.) and uses a specific, actionable verb.
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?
The intended use is implied by the verb 'Cria' and the resource name, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list/update variants or mention alternatives. There is no direct guidance on context, prerequisites, or decision logic beyond 'create an update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
The core legalone_get/list/create/update tools are clearly separated by entity and verb, so common lookups are easy to pick. However, legalone_odata_get and legalone_request duplicate the named CRUD surface, lawsuits vs litigations are near-synonyms in a legal context, and connect/toolkit_info/authenticate have overlapping connection/status duties. Descriptions help resolve most cases, but several tool pairs could still be misselected.
Naming Consistency3/5
The majority of tools follow a consistent legalone_<verb>_<entity> pattern, which is good. But auxiliary tools break the pattern: legalone_customfield_options, legalone_odata_get, legalone_request, legalone_metadata, authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info use bare verbs, nouns, or platform-infrastructure names. The result is mixed conventions that remain readable but are not consistent across the whole set.
Tool Count2/5
With 45 tools, this set is well beyond the 3–15 well-scoped range and above the 25-tool threshold for too many. Many tools are repetitive CRUD variants per entity, plus several infrastructure and marketplace tools that inflate the agent's selection space. A smaller entity-focused set plus one generic OData escape hatch would have covered virtually the same functionality.
Completeness3/5
Core legal entities like lawsuits, litigations, contacts, appointments, tasks, and updates have create/get/list/update coverage. However, documents, users, areas, service types, and custom field definitions lack named update/delete helpers, and no entity has a dedicated delete tool. The generic legalone_request/odata_get escape hatches fill these gaps, but the lifecycle coverage is uneven.