Skip to main content
Glama

editalmd

by com.editalmd

alerta_por_cnpj

Alertas de compra nova pelo CNPJ da empresa (precisa do token edm_…): as atividades (CNAE) viram famílias de termos e sai um alerta por família, principal primeiro, até max_familias. O que passa da franquia é cobrado numa vez só (x402 ou crédito). CNAE fora do dicionário vem listado na resposta com familia nula.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ufNoSigla da UF (opcional)
cnpjYesCNPJ com 14 dígitos, com ou sem pontuação
canalNopull, webhook ou email (padrão pull)pull
destinoNoURL https (webhook) ou e-mail (email)
max_familiasNo1 a 8 (padrão 8): quantas famílias viram alerta

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / canal / default
      Added value: +"pull"
    • addedInput schema / properties / canal / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "pull",
+  "webhook",
+  "email"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_familias / default
      Added value: +8
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the token requirement, cost behavior (charged once), and how out-of-dictionary CNAEs appear (null family). However, it does not clarify whether this is a write operation (creates alerts), its side effects, or the response format beyond that one note. It adds some value but lacks depth, so a 3 is fair.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists key behaviors. It is concise and information-dense without excess fluff. It could be broken into bullet points for readability, but it's well-structured and efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values. It partially does by mentioning that out-of-dictionary CNAEs appear with null family in the response, but it does not describe the full response structure, error cases, or other behavioral details. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is moderate but incomplete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about how CNAE activities relate to families and max_familias limits, which enriches understanding of parameters like max_familias. It does not introduce new syntax or format details beyond the schema, so it remains at baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: generating alerts for new purchases by company CNPJ. It specifies the verb ('Alertas de compra nova'), the resource (CNPJ), and the core logic (CNAE to families). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'alertas_compras' or 'criar_alerta', but the CNPJ-specific focus is evident. A 4 is appropriate because it's clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions a prerequisite (token edm_…) and cost implications (charging for overage), but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'criar_alerta' or 'alertas_compras'. It also doesn't state when not to use it. The context is minimal, so score 2.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All editalmd toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and descriptions clearly separate alerta_por_cnpj from criar_alerta and vigiar_compra from vigia_eventos. Only recibo is somewhat generic without reading its description, and the two alert-creation tools share a conceptual overlap.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names use snake_case, but conventions vary widely: some are verb+noun (criar_alerta, buscar_licitacao), some noun+verb (credito_recarregar), many are noun+noun (credito_saldo, alertas_compras, vigia_eventos), and health/api_index are English amid Portuguese names. The set feels less predictable than it could be.

Tool Count4/5

With 19 tools, the server covers several subdomains: search, documents, alerts, watches, billing, and account management. It is a bit heavy and includes optional meta endpoints like api_index and health, but the count is justifiable for the scope.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers search, purchase details, document extraction, alert creation and matches, watch creation/events, credits, and webhook management. However, there is no way to list, update, or cancel existing alerts or watches, which is a notable lifecycle gap.

Resources