CPFL: Download via link + OCR, 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 | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it involves downloading via link and OCR, requires no platform credentials, costs prepaid credit per query, and involves only non-confidential official data under LGPD responsibilities. This gives the agent a clear safety and cost profile.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action in the first clause. Each sentence adds non-redundant context about hosting, payment, data classification, and LGPD, though the legal phrasing could be tightened for more direct invocation guidance.
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 provides useful high-level context about official source, payment, credentials, and data sensitivity, which is especially valuable since there is no output schema. However, it does not describe what the returned information actually includes, nor clarify the optional 'documento' parameter, leaving notable gaps for correct invocation.
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 references the 'link' parameter through 'Download via link', but it never explains the optional 'documento' parameter, its format, or its purpose. The agent cannot reliably determine what to pass for 'documento' from the description alone.
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: 'Download via link + OCR, consulta em fonte oficial' for CPFL. It identifies the specific resource (CPFL) and action (consult via official source), and it is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are generic platform tools like authenticate and marketplace.
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 how the tool is hosted, that no platform credentials are needed, and that each query is paid with prepaid credit, which helps set expectations. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus an alternative or provides exclusion criteria; usage is only implied by the CPFL-specific scope.
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.