Correios: CEP, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cep | 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?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is pay-per-query with prepaid credit, returns non-confidential official data, and imposes LGPD responsibilities on the client. These operational and legal traits add meaningful context beyond readOnlyHint and destructiveHint.
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 front-loads the core purpose in the first phrase and then adds relevant operational, payment, and legal context in compact sentences. The paragraph is a bit dense, but each sentence earns its place, so it is appropriately concise for a commercial API tool.
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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers purpose, source, credentials, payment model, and data-sensitivity expectations. However, there is no output schema and no description of what the response contains or how errors/invalid CEPs are handled, leaving some practical usage gaps.
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% and the description does not specify the expected format for the 'cep' parameter (e.g., digits only, with or without hyphen, length, or validation behavior). It merely repeats 'CEP' in the opening phrase, adding little beyond the parameter name itself.
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 opens with 'CEP, consulta em fonte oficial,' clearly stating a specific action (querying a Brazilian postal code) and the resource (official Correios/Brazilian sources). This clearly distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools 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 implies usage by identifying this as a CEP lookup against official Brazilian sources and notes that the user pays per query with prepaid credit. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it, and no alternative lookup tool is mentioned.
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.