Cemig: Obter Instalações, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpf | No | ||
| cnpj | No | ||
| No | |||
| senha | 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context: it's hosted by the platform, no platform credentials needed, paid per query, and data is non-confidential. However, it lacks details on what the response contains or any side effects (though it's read-only).
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 paragraph of moderate length, providing essential information about the tool's nature, cost, and privacy. It is reasonably concise and does not waste words, though the structure could be improved with bullet points for readability.
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 complexity (4 parameters, multiple possible identifiers, paid service), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters interrelate (e.g., cpf vs cnpj), what the output will look like, or any prerequisites. The annotations and lack of output schema increase the burden on the description, which it does not fully meet.
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. It describes the purpose but does not explain the role of each parameter (cpf, cnpj, email, senha). It mentions 'senha' is required but not what it is for. The description gives no hints on which parameter to use for which scenario, making parameter selection ambiguous.
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 that the tool retrieves installations information from Cemig, an official source. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' by specifying a specific data lookup function, though it could be more specific about the exact resource ('instalações').
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 indicates this is for querying official Brazilian data, and mentions the paying model and LGPD compliance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools for different queries. The context is clear but not exhaustive.
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.