Busca um(a) Andamentos/publicações/atualizações do processo por id (OData /Updates/{id}). Use $expand para sub-recursos.
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| $expand | No | ||
| $select | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the OData endpoint, support for $expand and bulk execution. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful operational detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds information: the endpoint and the bulk capability. No fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only fetch by id tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and bulk behavior. However, it omits details on the 'query' object and '$select' semantics, which might be necessary for advanced usage. Given the annotations and simplicity, it's largely complete but could be more explicit about remaining parameters.
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 explains 'id' (the primary key), 'ids' for bulk, and '$expand' for sub-resources, but does not address 'query' or '$select' parameters. Given all 5 parameters are present, the coverage is partial, and the description adds some value over the schema but leaves gaps.
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 tool fetches an update by id, explicitly mentioning the OData endpoint ($/Updates/{id}). It distinguishes this from list_updates (which lists) and create_updates (which writes), making the 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 implies when to use this tool (fetch by id, with bulk support for multiple ids) and mentions using $expand for sub-resources. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_updates, the phrase 'por id' and the bulk mechanism make the intended usage clear. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance but is adequate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.