Protestos em cartório (nacional) por CPF/CNPJ.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "credito_protestos"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| CPF | No | ||
| CNPJ | No | ||
| completo | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the national scope, which is useful context, but it does not disclose behavior like authentication requirements, response format, or limitations (e.g., whether both CPF and CNPJ can be used simultaneously). Since the annotations carry the main safety information, a moderate score is appropriate.
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 concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and is appropriately sized for a tool with a clear function, achieving high conciseness without omitting essential purpose information.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of 'completo', potential response structure, or any usage constraints. While annotations provide safety context, the description lacks behavioral and usage detail needed for an agent to correctly use the tool, especially with sibling tools that may offer more specific variants.
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 description minimally explains that the query is by CPF or CNPJ, which gives some meaning to those parameters. However, the boolean 'completo' is completely unexplained, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to clarify any parameter semantics beyond the obvious document type. No distinction is made between CPF and CNPJ usage (e.g., mutual exclusivity).
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 'Protestos em cartório (nacional) por CPF/CNPJ' clearly indicates the tool retrieves notary protest records nationally by CPF or CNPJ. It distinguishes from the sibling 'credito_protestos_sp' by explicitly stating 'nacional', though it lacks a verb and is more of a noun phrase than an action statement.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify when to prefer this over 'credito_protestos_sp' or other credit-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'nacional' hint is implicit but not elaborated as 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.