MPT AL: 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.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful operational context: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires prepaid payment, uses publicly available non-confidential data, and assigns LGPD controller responsibility to the client. 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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds relevant context (official source, payment/credentials, data governance), though there is slight redundancy between 'fonte oficial' and 'fontes e órgãos oficiais'.
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 that this is a simple read-only query with no output schema, the description covers operational and legal aspects well. However, it omits crucial invocation details: which parameter(s) to provide and whether they are mutually exclusive or optional. This is a significant gap for correct tool invocation.
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 mention the parameters 'cpf' or 'cnpj' at all. It does not clarify whether at least one is required, how they combine, or what format is expected. The property names themselves give some hint, but the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 a specific verb ('consulta') and a specific resource ('Certidão Negativa de Feitos' from MPT AL), which distinguishes it from the infrastructure-oriented sibling tools. It is precise and unambiguous about what the tool does.
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 useful context for when to use the tool: it queries official Brazilian sources, requires prepaid credit, and does not need platform credentials. It does not explicitly list exclusions or compare to alternative query tools, but the siblings are all infrastructure/utility tools, so no alternative query tool exists to disambiguate.
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.