MPT DF e TO: 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 read-only and idempotent annotations are already provided, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the paid-per-query behavior, the official-source nature of the data, the non-confidential classification, and the LGPD responsibility. It does not describe response/error behavior, but the main side effects are well covered.
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 purpose and keeps the total length reasonable. Some repetition of 'official' and the platform context could be tightened, but the overall structure is easy to parse and relevant.
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 is complete enough for a simple read-only official lookup and includes payment and LGPD context, but with no output schema and no parameter guidance, the agent is still missing important expectations: what result format to expect and what the CPF/CNPJ requirements are.
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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not compensate for this. It does not explain that a CPF or CNPJ must be supplied, whether only one is accepted, or what formats are expected. The parameter names are self-explanatory to a Brazilian user, but the description adds no operational guidance about them.
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 identifies the resource: Certidão Negativa de Feitos, and the specific action: consulta em fonte oficial. It also differentiates this real lookup tool from the account/marketplace/tooling sibling tools, and adds context about the official Brazilian sources.
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 usage context: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, consumes prepaid credits, and accesses data available to the public. It does not explicitly name when not to use it, but the operational and financial context is clear enough for correct selection.
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.