CPFL: Download via link, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | Yes | ||
| documento | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that no platform credentials are required, that queries are paid via prepaid credit, and that data is not confidential, plus LGPD responsibility. This enriches behavioral context 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 a single run-on sentence containing payment, legal, and data-source info. It is information-dense but poorly structured, making it harder to parse quickly.
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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), but the description omits parameter semantics and return values. It provides context on cost and legal compliance but misses operational details necessary for the 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 schema lists two string parameters with no descriptions; the description references 'link' but never explains 'documento' (likely a CPF/CNPJ) or expected formats. With 0% schema coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 states 'CPFL: Download via link, consulta em fonte oficial' and clarifies this is an official-source consultation for CPFL bills, distinguishing it from generic platform tools. However, it does not explicitly mention 'bills' in English or detail the exact output, but the core action is clear.
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 explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool. It mentions platform hosting and prepaid credit but does not compare to alternatives or state conditions like 'use when needing CPFL bill data'. The legal LGPD note is not usage guidance.
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.