MPT BA: 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?
The description notes 'não é dado sigiloso' and implies read-only through 'consulta', but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur or what happens on errors. The annotation already indicates read-only, so the description adds some transparency but not full.
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 somewhat repetitive, repeating 'consulta' and 'informação', but overall it is relatively short. It could be streamlined without losing information.
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?
It covers purpose, payment, and data responsibility, but omits output format, error handling, and any additional constraints. Since there is no output schema, this description is incomplete for a full understanding.
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 description lists the parameters 'cpf' and 'cnpj' but provides no explanation of their format, requiredness, or semantics. This is minimal coverage, leaving users guessing.
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 'consulta em fonte oficial' with the specific resource 'Certidão Negativa de Feitos' from MPT BA, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'authenticate'. It lacks a bit of detail on the exact nature of the certificate but is clear enough.
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?
It mentions payment via prepaid credits, that the data is not confidential, and that the client is the data controller per LGPD. It does not mention when to use this vs alternatives, but these usage guidelines are helpful.
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.