MPT CE: 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those: hosting, prepaid credit cost, lack of platform credential requirements, public data source, and LGPD data-controller responsibilities. No contradiction with annotations is present.
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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by operational, financial, and legal context. Each sentence delivers distinct information, and there is no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately compact given the multiple caveats involved.
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 hosting, payment, source, and legal obligations well. However, with no output schema and no parameter guidance, the agent lacks a complete picture of what inputs to provide and what the response will look like. The context is sufficient for understanding the tool's place but not fully actionable.
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 with zero description coverage. The tool description does not explain their format, whether both/one must be provided, or their relationship to the certificate query. With 0% schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but does not address the parameters at all.
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 purpose: consulting an official 'Certidão Negativa de Feitos' from MPT CE. The verb 'consulta' and the specific resource distinguish it from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, and report_bug. The acronym MPT CE is not expanded, but the core action and subject are unambiguous.
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 conveys operational context: no platform credentials, prepaid credit required, official Brazilian source, and LGPD responsibilities for the client. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it indicate whether CPF or CNPJ should be supplied exclusively or optionally. Usage is implied rather than clearly guided.
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.