Skip to main content
Glama

pontofato

by com.pontofato

contact

Contato agente ($0.10 x402) ou humano (Turnstile).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesNome (alias `nome`).
emailYesE-mail de resposta.
messageYesMensagem (alias `mensagem`).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / email / description
      Added value: +"E-mail de resposta."
    • addedInput schema / properties / message / description
      Added value: +"Mensagem (alias `mensagem`)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"Nome (alias `nome`)."
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a cost ($0.10 x402) and a fallback to human (Turnstile), but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or what happens on success/failure. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short but not informative. It lacks front-loaded key information and is under-specified rather than concise.

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?

The tool is a simple contact form but has no output schema and minimal behavioral info. An agent would not know what response to expect or how to handle the cost/fallback details. 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is cryptic: 'Contact agent ($0.10 x402) or human (Turnstile).' It hints at contacting an agent or human but does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., submit a contact form). It is not a tautology, but it lacks a clear verb+resource.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools are unrelated, so no differentiation is provided. It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios.

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

All pontofato 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

B3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: buscar, cep, proximo, raio, empresas, and vizinhanca each target a different lookup mode or data source. Some overlap exists between cep vs unidades (CNEFE points vs units) and empresas vs vizinhanca (by CEP vs by radius), but the descriptions clarify the boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are single lowercase tokens, which gives a uniform visual style, but they mix Portuguese and English (buscar, cep, proximo vs api_index, contact, health) and mix nouns with verbs. The pattern is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well-scoped for a Brazilian address/CEP/CNEFE/business lookup API. The set covers core lookups, proximity queries, meta endpoints, and support functions without feeling padded or excessive.

Completeness4/5

The domain is well covered: address search, CEP lookup, CNEFE points/units, nearest point, radius CEP search, business lookups by CEP and radius, plus health and API index. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit pagination on some endpoints and no direct reverse-geocoding beyond proximity queries, but these are workable.

Resources