Skip to main content
Glama

Cadastro PF + Receita Federal

by io.github.mcp-dir

cpf_receita_consultar

Read-onlyIdempotent

Dados cadastrais de uma pessoa física com a situação na Receita Federal, a partir do CPF. 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 declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds useful context: data is public access, not private, and LGPD responsibilities are mentioned. This goes beyond structured fields without contradiction.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Additional legal and payment details are relevant and not wasted, though the text is a bit dense.

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 purpose, access type, payment, and legal aspects, but the 'completo' parameter is undocumented and no output format is mentioned. For a simple tool, this is a noticeable gap.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'completo' parameter. Only the CPF parameter is implicitly clear from the tool name and description, so parameter semantics are under-specified.

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?

The description clearly states it provides registration data and Federal Revenue status for a CPF, specifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are unrelated to CPF consultation.

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?

The description provides clear context: hosted platform, no credentials, prepaid credit per query. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but siblings are unrelated, so this is reasonable.

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

All Cadastro PF + Receita Federal 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct roles: authenticate handles login, connect reports connection status, cpf_receita_consultar does the actual CPF lookup. However, connect and toolkit_info both touch connection status, and authenticate/connect have some overlap, which could cause minor confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: English and Portuguese are mixed (cpf_receita_consultar vs. report_bug), some names are verbs (authenticate, connect) while others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses snake_case while others don't follow a clear pattern.

Tool Count4/5

At 7 tools, the count is reasonable and within the typical well-scoped range. However, the server is named for CPF/Receita Federal but has only one domain-specific tool, with the rest being generic platform utilities, making the set feel slightly imbalanced for its stated purpose.

Completeness3/5

The CPF consultation tool provides basic lookup capability, but the domain surface is thin—there's no validation, batch, or historical querying. The marketplace tool mitigates this by allowing access to other MCPs, but for a server dedicated to CPF/Receita, the coverage is incomplete.

Resources