MPF: Amazônia Protege, 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 already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds significant context beyond them: payment model, lack of platform credentials, official/non-confidential data nature, and LGPD controller responsibility. This gives the agent a strong understanding of operational and legal expectations. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence earning its place: purpose, access/payment model, and legal/data handling context. There is no redundant repetition of the tool name or schema fields.
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, access, payment, and legal context well, and the annotations provide safety metadata. However, with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description still leaves ambiguity about what exactly is returned and how the CPF/CNPJ parameters should be supplied, so it is not fully complete.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions CPF or CNPJ, whether they are alternatives, required, or how they should be formatted. The bare property names give some hint, but the description adds no semantic value for invoking the tool 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 'MPF: Amazônia Protege, consulta em fonte oficial', giving a specific verb and resource and clearly identifying this as an official-source consultation tool. It further distinguishes itself from the platform-related sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) by stating it provides information from official Brazilian sources, not platform services.
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 usage context: no platform credentials are needed, it is hosted by the platform, and each query is paid for with prepaid credit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the sibling tools are unrelated enough that the use case is reasonably clear.
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.