Skip to main content
Glama

Análise de Crédito PF

by io.github.mcp-dir

credito_pf_consultar

Read-onlyIdempotent

Consulta de crédito de uma pessoa física a partir do CPF: dados cadastrais, score, pendências e histórico. Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago. Consulta informação de crédito em bureaus e bases oficiais. O uso exige base legal (ex.: análise de risco solicitada pelo titular ou relação contratual). O cliente é o controlador e responde pela finalidade (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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds cost implications (prepaid credit), lack of credentials, and LGPD compliance responsibilities for the client. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and prerequisites.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise and front-loaded, delivering purpose, access model, cost, and legal context in just three sentences without unnecessary fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description is largely complete for a read-only consult tool: it states purpose, returned data types, cost model, access method, and legal requirements. The only notable gap is the unexplained 'completo' parameter, but this does not severely impact overall completeness.

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?

The CPF parameter is explicitly described as the query key, but the optional 'completo' boolean is not explained at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter, leaving the agent to guess its effect.

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 identifies the tool as a credit consultation for individuals based on CPF, listing the specific data returned (dados cadastrais, score, pendências, histórico). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools since none of the siblings are credit-related.

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 context for usage: hosted by the platform, no credentials, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and requires legal basis. It clearly implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly exclude alternatives, though none are present among siblings.

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

All Análise de Crédito PF 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: authentication, connectivity status, credit consultation, MCP catalog, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. Even though authenticate and connect both deal with access, their functions are separate and unambiguous.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), and underscore-separated compounds with varying patterns (credito_pf_consultar, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). There is no uniform verb_noun or noun_verb convention.

Tool Count2/5

While seven tools is not excessive, the count is inappropriate for the server's stated purpose of credit analysis. Six of the seven tools are generic platform utilities (auth, connect, marketplace, bug reporting, version, toolkit state) that dilute the domain-specific focus. Only one tool actually performs credit analysis.

Completeness3/5

The core credit consultation operation is covered by credito_pf_consultar, but there are no additional credit-domain operations. The rest of the tools are platform-level, not domain-specific. The surface feels thin for a server named 'Análise de Crédito PF', leaving no further credit-related capabilities.

Resources