Consulta os estabelecimentos vinculados a uma operadora. Quando usar: para identificar unidades da rede por UF. Quando não usar: para buscar o cadastro geral; use operadora_lookup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uf | No | ||
| limite | No | ||
| registro | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fonte | Yes | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| por_uf | Yes | ||
| registro_ans | Yes | ||
| atualizado_em | Yes | ||
| estabelecimentos | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Consulta' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permission requirements, rate limits, or other operational traits.
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 short, front-loaded, and structured around purpose, when to use, and when not to use. Every sentence adds routing value without repetition.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is still incomplete regarding parameter meaning and operational behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but largely does not. It hints at UF-based filtering, yet the required 'registro' parameter and the 'limite' parameter are not explained at all.
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 states a specific verb and resource: querying establishments linked to an operator. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from operadora_lookup, so an agent can tell which tool to select.
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?
It provides explicit 'when to use' guidance for identifying network units by UF and explicit 'when not to use' guidance pointing to operadora_lookup for the general registry. This is exactly the routing information an agent needs.
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.