MPT AC e RO: Certidão Negativa de Feitos, 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?
Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral details: it notes that no platform credentials are required, that each query is paid via prepaid credit, and that the data is not confidential and sourced from official Brazilian outlets. It also mentions LGPD compliance, enriching transparency.
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 that is concise yet informative. It begins with the main purpose, then adds relevant details about hosting, payment, and data privacy. The structure is acceptable, though it could be slightly more organized with bullet points or sections.
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?
While the description provides context about the source, payment, and data sensitivity, it does not describe the return format or what the certificate contains beyond being 'negative'. It also omits error handling or edge cases. Given the lack of an output schema, this leaves some ambiguity about the response.
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 schema lists 'cpf' and 'cnpj' as string parameters but provides no description, and the tool description does not explain their purpose or requirements. It is left to inference that they are identifiers, but no clarification on when each is used or required is given, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 function: it queries an official source for a Negative Certificate of Feitos (Certidão Negativa de Feitos) specifically for MPT AC and RO. The mention of 'consulta em fonte oficial' and the specific certificate type provides a unambiguous purpose.
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 explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any related tools. It implies the use case (checking for legal cases) but lacks explicit guidance or differentiation from other possible tools.
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.