Escape hatch: chamada REST crua à API Projuris ADV. method (GET/POST/PUT/DELETE/PATCH) + path (ex.: "/processo/123" ou "/v2/processo/consulta") + query/body opcionais. Cobre os 757 recursos, inclusive v2 e configs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| query | No | ||
| method | Yes |
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?
The description says this tool performs a raw REST call to the external Projuris ADV API, but the annotations declare openWorldHint=false, which directly contradicts the implication that no outside-world interaction occurs. Additionally, the tool supports DELETE/POST/PUT/PATCH without any warning about side effects or destructive potential.
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 front-loaded with the key concept ('Escape hatch'), then gives the essential parameter pattern and scope. Every clause adds value: the API target, method/path/query/body combination, examples, and full resource coverage, with no filler.
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 generic raw REST escape hatch, the description is reasonably complete: it covers method, path, optional query/body, examples, and the full API surface. It omits response/error/auth specifics, but no output schema exists and the raw-call semantics make those details less critical for initial selection and invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does compensate: it names all four parameters, marks query and body as optional, and gives concrete path examples such as '/processo/123' and '/v2/processo/consulta'. It does not deeply explain body/query formats, but for a raw pass-through REST tool this is acceptable.
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 identifies the tool as an escape hatch for raw REST calls to the Projuris ADV API, with explicit method and path examples. It also distinguishes itself from the many specialized projuris_* sibling tools by noting it covers all 757 resources, including v2 and configs.
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 phrase 'Escape hatch' strongly implies use when dedicated wrappers are insufficient, and the description explicitly notes full API coverage, including v2 and configs. However, it does not name specific sibling alternatives or state a formal 'use this only when no specialized tool exists' rule.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by entity and action (e.g., projuris_consulta_processo vs projuris_get_processo vs projuris_create_processo). The generic fallbacks (projuris_get, projuris_consulta, projuris_request) are explicitly described as escape hatches for resources without named tools, reducing confusion. A few overlaps exist (e.g., projuris_list_webhook vs a potential consulta_webhook), but descriptions clarify the intended use.
The projuris_* tools follow a consistent pattern: projuris_{verb}_{entity} (e.g., projuris_consulta_processo, projuris_create_pessoa). However, verbs mix languages — English 'create/get/update/list' alongside Portuguese 'consulta' — and one tool uses 'list' while others use 'consulta'. The non-prefixed platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) break the pattern entirely, further hurting consistency.
With 38 tools, this is a heavy surface, but it reflects the breadth of a legal ERP with many entities. Several tools are generic fallbacks that cover the entire API, and the platform-level tools add non-Projuris functionality. The count is borderline: not extremely bloated, but more than necessary for the core CRUD operations.
The named tools cover only a subset of entities (e.g., no create/update for processo or contrato), which would be a gap. However, the generic projuris_request, projuris_get, and projuris_consulta tools provide complete access to all 757 API resources, so no dead ends remain. This hybrid approach makes the surface functionally complete for an agent, though the named tool coverage is uneven.