radar-cnpj

ref

Ref CNAE/município/natureza.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No	Texto a procurar no vocabulário, até 60 caracteres.
`tipo`	Yes	cnae\|municipio\|natureza\|…

Schema Changelog

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

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / q / description

Added value: +"Texto a procurar no vocabulário, até 60 caracteres."

addedInput schema / properties / tipo / enum

Added value: +[
+  "cnae",
+  "municipio",
+  "natureza"
+]

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about side effects, read-only vs. mutating nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a critical omission.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It consists of a single noun phrase with no verb or action. While it is front-loaded, it omits essential information, so it does not earn the conciseness score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must provide substantial context. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how results are formatted, or what 'ref' implies. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based on the current description.

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% – both 'q' and 'tipo' have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the enum values. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents parameters, but the description provides no supplementary value.

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 'Ref CNAE/município/natureza' is a noun phrase with no verb or explicit action. It lists resource types (CNAE, município, natureza) but does not state what the tool does with them (e.g., look up, reference, or suggest). It provides no differentiation from sibling tools like 'search' or 'suggest', leaving an agent unable to determine the tool's function.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus the 12 siblings. No context on appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions is provided. An agent has no guidance to decide between 'ref' and 'search' or 'suggest'.

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

All radar-cnpj tools Inspect

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

C2.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct purpose: exact CNPJ lookup, company search, autocomplete, AI filter generation, idea evaluation, reference data, session/watches management, and API utility endpoints. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

The naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun snake_case (get_cnpj, add_watch, list_watches), some are bare English verbs (search, suggest, contact), and some are bare nouns or abbreviations (health, local, ref, api_index). It also mixes languages, with Portuguese avaliar alongside English names.

Tool Count4/5

13 tools is within a reasonable range for a server covering CNPJ lookup, search, evaluation, monitoring, and API metadata. The count feels slightly broad because several utility endpoints (health, api_index, contact, local) are auxiliary, but no tool is redundant.

Completeness3/5

The core lookup, search, evaluation, and reference workflows are covered well. However, the monitoring lifecycle is incomplete: add_watch and list_watches exist but there is no remove_watch, and monitor_session has no session status or termination counterpart, creating a dead end for the watch flow.

Resources

Need Help?