IBAMA: Autuações Ambientais, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ano | Yes | ||
| cpf | No | ||
| cnpj | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / CnpjRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / CpfRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / anoAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / cnpjAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / completoRemoved value: -{
- "type": "boolean"
-}Input schema / properties / cpfAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "Cpf",
- "Cnpj"
-]New value: +[
+ "ano"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it mentions prepaid credit payment, that the data is the same available to citizens, that it is not confidential, and that the customer is the data controller under LGPD. This goes beyond the safety profile already provided by annotations.
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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and each subsequent sentence provides relevant operational or legal context. It avoids fluff, though the legal/payment details add length without overwhelming.
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?
The description covers purpose, payment model, data source, and legal responsibilities, which is substantial for a simple query tool. However, it omits any explanation of the parameters or the response format, which is significant given the lack of an output schema and empty parameter descriptions.
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 elaborate on the parameters (ano, cpf, cnpj) at all. It neither explains what these fields represent nor how they are used, leaving the required 'ano' parameter entirely unexplained and the tool difficult to invoke correctly.
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 'IBAMA: Autuações Ambientais, consulta em fonte oficial', specifying the exact resource (environmental infractions) and the action (consultation). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like authenticate or marketplace, which serve unrelated functions.
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 provides clear context: it is a paid per-query service, hosted by the platform, and requires no platform credentials. While it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, the context makes the intended use case evident.
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.
The only domain-specific tool, ibama_autuacoes_consultar, is clearly distinct, but the platform utilities overlap (e.g., connect and toolkit_info both report connection state) and marketplace introduces a meta-layer that confuses the set's purpose. The descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could easily misselect among the generic tools.
Names mix single verbs (authenticate, connect), verb_noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese phrase (ibama_autuacoes_consultar). All use lowercase underscores, but the lack of a consistent pattern and mixed languages make it unpredictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but six are generic platform utilities that don't belong in a server named for IBAMA autuações, making the count feel inflated for the stated domain. The single domain tool is appropriate, yet the presence of marketplace and account tools dilutes the set's focus.
For a public-data query MCP, the single consultar tool covers the essential operation, but there are no complementary features like history, batch lookup, or export. The marketplace tool can fill some gaps by invoking other MCPs, but that's not part of this server's native domain surface.