Skip to main content
Glama

Cadastro PF Básico

by io.github.mcp-dir

cpf_cadastral_consultar

Read-onlyIdempotent

Dados cadastrais básicos de uma pessoa física a partir do CPF: nome, situação cadastral e data de nascimento. Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago. Consulta informação de ACESSO PÚBLICO em bases e fontes oficiais (a mesma disponível ao cidadão), não é dado privado nem sigiloso. O cliente é o controlador dos dados e responde pela finalidade legítima (LGPD).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
CPFYes
completoNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context: no credentials, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, data is public and not private, and LGPD compliance. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. No fluff, but the structure could be improved with clearer separation of purpose and constraints.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the return fields (name, registration status, birth date) and key constraints, but it does not explain the 'completo' parameter or provide details on errors or cost structure. Since there is no output schema, more detail would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that CPF is the input but does not explain the 'completo' boolean parameter. This leaves a significant gap in parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the tool returns basic registration data for a person from CPF, listing specific fields (name, registration status, birth date). It is distinct from sibling tools, which are unrelated to CPF lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear usage context: requires prepaid credit, no credentials, and handles public data. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives or list exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Cadastro PF Básico toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tools are mostly distinct, but there is overlap between 'authenticate' and 'connect' (login vs status), and 'report_bug' duplicates functionality already inside 'marketplace'. The overloaded 'marketplace' tool bundles many sub-actions, making it harder to distinguish when to use it versus the dedicated tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: English verbs ('authenticate', 'connect', 'report_bug', 'show_version') mix with noun-based names ('marketplace', 'toolkit_info') and a Portuguese snake_case domain tool ('cpf_cadastral_consultar'). No clear pattern is maintained across the set.

Tool Count3/5

At 7 tools, the count is numerically reasonable, but only one tool ('cpf_cadastral_consultar') relates to the server's stated purpose. The other six are generic platform utilities that should likely live in a separate server, making the scope feel bloated for a 'Cadastro PF Básico' service.

Completeness2/5

The CPF domain surface is severely minimal: just a single consultation tool. There are no additional CPF-related operations (e.g., validation, formatting, status history), and the rest of the tools are unrelated to the domain, leaving the server incomplete as a focused CPF toolset.

Resources