IBAMA: Certidão de Embargos (Nada Consta), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpf | No | ||
| cnpj | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses extra behavioral traits: it requires pre-paid payment, does not need platform credentials, and clarifies data handling under LGPD (client as controller, non-confidential data). This goes well beyond the annotation info.
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 relatively short and to the point, but it contains some redundancy (repeats 'official source' and 'not confidential' multiple times). It is structured as a flowing paragraph without bullet points, but it is not overly verbose. Acceptable but could be tighter.
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 provides useful context about payment, data privacy, and the official nature of the data. However, it does not explain the expected output or how the parameters are used (e.g., whether CPF or CNPJ must be provided). Given its simplicity, it is moderately complete but leaves important gaps for the agent.
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 input schema lists two parameters (cpf and cnpj) but provides no descriptions. The description does not explain their meaning, usage, or whether they are mutually exclusive or both required. With schema coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate, so this dimension is very weak.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it performs a consulta (query) for IBAMA's embargo certificate (Certidão de Embargos), specifying the resource and action. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, marketplace, etc.) by focusing on this specific certificate query.
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 context on when to use the tool (for consulting embargo certificates from official Brazilian sources) and mentions operational details (pre-paid credits, no platform credentials). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state exact conditions for use, but given the specific nature, the guidance is adequate.
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.