BR Intelligence

get_company_score

Explainable health/risk score 0-100 for a Brazilian company (KYB / supplier triage), with the factors and flags behind it. Not a credit score. Price: $0.02.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cnpj": "<cnpj>"
    },
    "name": "get_company_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cnpj`	Yes	Brazilian CNPJ, with or without formatting. Numeric or alphanumeric (IN RFB 2.229/2024).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses cost ($0.02) and clarifies the output is a score plus the factors and flags behind it, and that it is not a credit score. It omits auth/permission requirements, latency, and any rate-limit or failure behavior.

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?

Three tight clauses with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the 'not a credit score' caveat and the price. Efficient and scannable.

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 a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the score is, its scale, what accompanies it (factors/flags), and cost. The main missing piece is guidance on when to prefer the batch sibling.

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% for the single cnpj parameter, including the numeric-or-alphanumeric (IN RFB 2.229/2024) note. The description adds nothing beyond identifying the resource as a Brazilian company, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: an explainable 0-100 health/risk score for a Brazilian company, with the backing factors and flags. The 'Not a credit score' disclaimer sharpens the concept, but it never names a sibling (e.g. batch_company_score or get_company_dossier) to distinguish itself within the toolset.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides implied context via 'KYB / supplier triage', which tells the agent the kind of decision this supports. It stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointing to alternatives such as the batch variant for multiple companies.

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

All BR Intelligence tools Inspect

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

Need Help?