Issues the municipal tax clearance certificate for a person or company from the CPF or CNPJ, municip
MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it provides a browser login link, suggests permanent token storage in config, explains session-only behavior, and specifies the no-args link retrieval. This is rich contextual detail that enhances understanding.
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 slightly dense and run-on, but each segment earns its place, covering audience, two methods, and parameter usage. It could be broken into clearer sentences but is not excessive.
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?
With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: how to authenticate, the two paths (permanent/session), and what happens with no args. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 input schema only shows a 'token' string, but the description explains it is a JWT, that it is optional (can omit to get a link), and exactly how to use it in a call. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
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 clearly indicates this tool is for authentication with MCP.AI, providing instructions for obtaining and using a token. However, it lacks a crisp verb+resource statement like 'Authenticates the user' and instead fronts with audience context, so it's clear but not maximally precise.
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 offers explicit guidance on two usage methods (permanent config vs. session-only) and when each is appropriate, but it does not mention alternatives outside this tool or state when not to use it, leaving a slight gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Emite a Certidão Negativa de Débitos municipal de uma pessoa ou empresa a partir do CPF ou CNPJ, inscrição municipal e município. Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago. Consulta informação de ACESSO PÚBLICO em bases e fontes oficiais (a mesma disponível ao cidadão), não é dado privado nem sigiloso. O cliente é o controlador dos dados e responde pela finalidade legítima (LGPD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| IM | Yes | ||
| Cpf | Yes | ||
| Cnpj | Yes | ||
| completo | No | ||
| Municipio | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond these: it is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, involves prepaid credit, accesses public data (not private), and places LGPD compliance on the client. This informs the agent about operational and legal aspects that annotations do not cover.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the core function and inputs, and the second adds necessary operational and legal context. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or irrelevant details.
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 description covers the main purpose, key inputs, and critical operational/legal context (public data, no credentials, pre-paid, LGPD). However, it fails to explain the 'completo' parameter, does not specify the output format (just 'Emite a Certidão'), and contains the 'ou' discrepancy regarding CPF/CNPJ. These gaps make it only partially complete.
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 must compensate. It mentions CPF/CNPJ, IM, and Município but misleadingly says 'a partir do CPF ou CNPJ' (from CPF or CNPJ) while the schema requires both Cpf and Cnpj. This is a contradiction that could cause incorrect invocation. The optional parameter 'completo' is not mentioned at all, leaving its meaning undefined.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Emite a Certidão Negativa de Débitos municipal de uma pessoa ou empresa a partir do CPF ou CNPJ...' It uses a specific verb (emite) and identifies the resource (certidão negativa de débitos municipal). This distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.).
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 context of use is implied: to obtain a municipal negative debt certificate from public sources. The description adds operational context (hosted, no credentials, pay-per-query, LGPD responsibilities) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned, so usage guidance is implied but not directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by describing the output in different scenarios (authenticated:true when connected, connect_url when credentials missing), which is valuable beyond the annotations. It does not cover all edge cases (e.g., partial connections) but is sufficient for a read-only status tool.
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 two sentences long, with the primary purpose stated upfront: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' The second sentence adds conditional behavior without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is highly efficient.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and behavior. It covers the two main states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and mentions both return fields (authenticated and pending). It does not describe partial connection states, but for a simple status tool with no schema, this is reasonably complete.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not elaborate on parameter semantics. The input schema is empty, and the description adds no parameter info because none exists. Per the rubric, 0 params receives a baseline score of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the resource (connection status) and the verb (returns), and distinguishes it from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than authentication execution. The conditional behavior further clarifies what the tool does.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: it explains what happens when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing. This implicitly guides the agent to use this tool for checking connection state before attempting authentication. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but given the sibling 'authenticate', the distinction is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them. Covers capability requests like "find an MCP that does X", "consulta um CPF", "is there a tool for Y". Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile (every tool with its id + params, pricing, auth) so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool. KEY: invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente (one-off), without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list. If the MCP needs a credential/login, invoke returns a connect link; if it is paid and the wallet is empty, invoke returns a checkout/top-up link (the user opens it, then you retry). Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit (its tools then show up natively in future sessions); prefer invoke for a single/occasional use. list_tools lists what is callable right now. subscribe/cancel handle per-MCP billing; report_bug sends feedback; request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits. Search/describe flag installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. Writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin. It also carries the mcp.ai PROMPT LIBRARY, which is about ready-made prompt TEXT rather than MCPs: search_prompts finds one, get_prompt returns its full text with {{variables}} filled, and publish_prompt saves a prompt and returns a shareable mcp.ai/p/ link that opens without login.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| action | No | search | |
| mcp_id | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| tool_id | No | ||
| arguments | No | {} | |
| immediate | No | ||
| tier_slug | No | ||
| prompt_body | No | ||
| prompt_slug | No | ||
| prompt_tool | No | ||
| prompt_vars | No | {} | |
| conversation | No | [] | |
| prompt_title | No | ||
| request_name | No | ||
| cancel_reason | No | ||
| cancel_comment | No | ||
| prompt_targets | No | ||
| report_context | No | ||
| prompt_category | No | ||
| request_details | No | ||
| prompt_description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are limited to hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that invoke runs one-off without installing, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, requires owner/admin for writes, and explains the prompt library's link behavior (opens without login). No contradiction with 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 long but organized with a clear progression: definition, capabilities, core flow, key behaviors, alternatives, permission requirements, and prompt library. Every sentence contributes meaning, though it could be tightened.
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?
Covers the major actions, edge cases (auth/payment), permission model, and the prompt library. However, it omits mention of the 'resume' action and the effects of uninstall beyond permission requirements, leaving a few gaps for a 23-parameter multi-action tool.
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% for 23 parameters. The description explains the action/tool_id/query flow and mentions prompt-related fields implicitly, but many parameters (tier_slug, immediate, conversation, report_context, prompt_targets) are not explained. It provides partial compensation but not enough for a parameter-heavy tool.
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 clearly defines the marketplace as the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool and the way to run them. It explicitly outlines the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes from sibling tools by covering capability requests and the prompt library.
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?
Explicit guidance distinguishes invoke vs install: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also explains when to use list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, and request_mcp, and how to handle connect/checkout flows before retrying.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| conversation | No | [] |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds context about including the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or retry behavior beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.
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 reporting tool with present annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains the main behavior and required context (conversation). It could mention parameter formats (e.g., conversation as JSON string) but is mostly sufficient.
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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description only clarifies the 'conversation' parameter ('recent messages for reproduction'), leaving 'message' and 'context' undocumented. This provides minimal compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('a bug, missing feature, or send feedback'). It is easy to understand and distinguishes itself from unrelated siblings like authenticate, marketplace, and show_version.
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 clear context on when to use the tool (report a bug, missing feature, or feedback) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. It implies the appropriate conditions for use without detailing when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `idempotentHint: true`, establishing the safety profile. The description adds the specific scope (platform and adapter versions) but does not elaborate on output format or any other behavioral nuances beyond that.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, simple read-only operation) and existing annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and scope. It is complete for a tool of this simplicity.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the description's mention of 'current' reinforces that no input is required. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no missing parameter information to compensate for.
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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and a clear resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions', precisely differentiating this tool from sibling informational tools like `toolkit_info` by focusing on version details.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `toolkit_info`. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the appropriate context or exclusions unmentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds meaningful context about the return value's content, which aligns with the annotations and discloses the tool's informational nature beyond what annotations provide.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently enumerates four distinct data points without filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 no-parameter info tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and return content. It could optionally mention output format, but the enumerated components are sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive.
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 input schema has zero parameters, making schema description coverage trivially 100%. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document, and the description correctly adds no redundant parameter information.
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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', enumerating exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or 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 clear context by stating what the tool returns, which implies when to use it (whenever an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's connections and capabilities). It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but for a standalone info tool, this is sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
No tool schema history has been recorded yet.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Prefeitura MG Luz: Clearance Certificate (Debts), official-source lookup. Platform-hosted, pay per q
Prefeitura RJ Rio de Janeiro: Clearance Certificate (Debts), official-source lookup. Platform-hosted
Issues the federal tax clearance certificate (CND) for a person or company from the CPF or CNPJ. Pla
Prefeitura SP São Carlos: Clearance Certificate (Debts), official-source lookup. Platform-hosted, pa
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but 'authenticate' and 'connect' both relate to authentication/connection status, and 'marketplace' is a sprawling meta-tool that overlaps with many capabilities. The domain-specific 'cnd_municipal_consultar' stands apart from the generic platform tools, reducing confusion among the former but making the set feel disjointed.
Names mix single-word verbs (connect, marketplace), compound verbs (report_bug, show_version), and an inconsistent noun phrase (toolkit_info). The Portuguese 'cnd_municipal_consultar' contrasts sharply with English tool names, and there is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
While 7 tools is a reasonable number, the server is named 'CND Municipal' yet contains only one domain-specific tool; the other six are generic MCP platform utilities. This is a poor match between the server's apparent purpose and its actual tool composition.
For a CND Municipal service, the surface is extremely thin: only one query tool for the actual domain. There are no management operations for CND records, credit balance, or history. The platform tools (marketplace, connect, etc.) do not address domain completeness, leaving significant gaps for any real CND workflow.