Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

radar-cnpj

by com.radar-cnpj
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Find construction works

search_construction
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find Brazilian CNO construction works by their 12-digit number, a company CNPJ, or a city and state. Filter by area in square meters, construction type, category and status. Only company-owned records are included. Check source dates and update status. Use add_watch for company changes; this lookup does not issue official certificates.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_construction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ufNoTwo-letter Brazilian state code. Required with municipality.
cnoNo12-digit CNO number; punctuation is accepted.
cnpjNoValid CNPJ. Includes records for the same company root and previous links.
tipoNoRecorded construction type: Alvenaria, Madeira or Mista.
cursorNoCursor from the previous response. Keep the same filters.
limiteNoRecords per page: 1 to 50; default 20.
areaMaxNoMaximum area in square meters.
areaMinNoMinimum area in square meters.
situacaoNoStatus code: 1 void, 2 active, 3 suspended, 14 stopped, 15 closed.
categoriaNoRecorded category, such as Obra Nova or Reforma.
municipioNoFull municipality name. Use ref with tipo=municipio to find the name and state code.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / municipio / description
      Previous value: -"Full municipality name."New value: +"Full municipality name. Use ref with tipo=municipio to find the name and state code."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured information: records are restricted to company-owned works, no official certificates are produced, and source dates/update status should be checked for freshness.

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?

Front-loaded with the lookup keys, then filters, then scope and the add_watch pointer – the ordering matches how an agent would decide. Slightly dense: 'Check source dates and update status' is compressed and ambiguous, and pagination is never mentioned despite cursor/limite existing.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 11-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers discovery paths, filter dimensions, scope restrictions and the key caveat (no certificates). Minor gap: no mention that results are paged and that cursor must be reused with identical filters, though the schema carries that.

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 every parameter (uf, cno, cnpj, tipo, situacao, categoria, areaMin/areaMax, cursor, limite) is already documented. The description only restates the same dimensions at a high level and adds no format or interaction rules beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (Find) plus the exact resource (Brazilian CNO construction works) and enumerates the three lookup keys: 12-digit CNO, company CNPJ, or city+state. An agent can distinguish this from ref, search and consulta_* siblings without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly scopes the tool ('Only company-owned records are included') and routes monitoring elsewhere ('Use add_watch for company changes'), plus a clear negative capability ('does not issue official certificates'). It stops short of naming a lookup alternative for the cases this tool can't serve (e.g. finding a municipality name), which the schema leaves to the ref tool.

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

All radar-cnpj toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources