INPI: Patentes, 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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about authentication (no platform credentials, paid per query with prepaid credit) and LGPD compliance, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not detail what happens on failure or the exact nature of the data returned. It adds some value but not a high level of detail.
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 paragraph with mixed information: it states purpose, hosting, payment model, and legal compliance. It is relatively concise but could be better structured with front-loaded purpose and separate notes. Some details (e.g., platform hosting) seem extraneous for tool selection.
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 is a simple query with no output schema and annotations cover safety, the description is fairly complete. It mentions the payment model and legal aspects, which are useful. However, it lacks detail on what constitutes a valid query (e.g., CPF vs CNPJ) and potential limitations, but given the simplicity, it is adequate.
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%, meaning the schema has minimal descriptions (just parameter names). The description does not elaborate on the parameters 'cpf' and 'cnpj' beyond what the names imply. It doesn't say whether both are needed, what format, or whether they are optional. With zero coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 states it consults INPI patent information in official sources, but the verb 'consultar' is specific enough. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though siblings are unrelated (authentication, connection, marketplace, etc.), so the context implies it is a standalone query tool. Purpose is clear but could be sharper.
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 does not specify when to use this tool versus others. It mentions it is for official Brazilian sources, which gives some context, but no direct exclusions or alternatives. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
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.