Antecedentes Criminais: MG, consulta em fonte oficial. Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago. Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros (a mesma disponível ao cidadão), não é dado sigiloso. O cliente é o controlador dos dados e responde pela finalidade legítima (LGPD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rg | No | ||
| cpf | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable context: the data comes from official Brazilian sources (not confidential), the payment model (prepaid credit), and LGPD responsibilities. This goes beyond the boolean annotations.
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 about four sentences, front-loading the main purpose. While the legal and payment disclaimers add length, they are relevant and the text remains scannable.
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?
For a simple lookup tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and legal aspects. However, the complete lack of parameter guidance means an agent may not reliably format a valid request.
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?
The description provides zero information about the 'rg' or 'cpf' parameters. With schema description coverage at 0%, the agent gets no hints about formats, which identifier to use, or whether either is required. This is a critical omission.
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 immediately begins with 'Antecedentes Criminais: MG, consulta em fonte oficial,' specifying the action (query) and resource (criminal background in Minas Gerais). This clearly differentiates it from generic sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'connect'.
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?
The description provides context about the service—official source, prepaid credit, no platform credentials—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The use case is implied rather than spelled out.
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.