Consulta cadastral de um CNPJ (grátis): razão social, nome fantasia, situação cadastral, CNAE principal, porte, município/UF e SÓCIOS (QSA). Útil pra identificar a empresa e seus sócios antes de buscar processos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cnpj | Yes |
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by listing return fields and noting it's free, but does not add behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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?
Description is a single sentence with a useful fragment. Front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured, but effective.
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 tool with 1 param and no output schema, description lists return fields and provides usage context. Lacks parameter format guidance, but overall complete for basic operation.
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%, but description does not clarify expected format of 'cnpj' (e.g., masked vs raw digits, required length). Parameter name alone is insufficient for agents to invoke correctly without assumptions.
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?
Description clearly states verb ('consulta') and specific resource ('cadastral de um CNPJ'), listing key data fields (razão social, sócios, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling 'cnpj_processos' by mentioning its utility before searching lawsuits.
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?
Description implies usage context: 'Útil pra identificar a empresa e seus sócios antes de buscar processos' indicates when to use this tool relative to the sibling. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.
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.
Some tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., authenticate vs connect, marketplace vs toolkit_info), but descriptions help differentiate. The domain-specific tools (cnpj_consultar, cnpj_processos) are distinct from generic utilities.
Mixed naming conventions: snake_case (cnpj_consultar, cnpj_processos), camelCase (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and lowercase (authenticate, connect, marketplace). No consistent pattern.
Only 2 of 8 tools are domain-specific (CNPJ); the other 6 are generic platform utilities (auth, connection, marketplace, etc.) that inflate the count and misalign with the server's stated purpose.
For the CNPJ domain, only consult and process search are provided. Missing CRUD operations, CPF lookup, or other Brazilian registry data, leaving significant gaps.