MPT ES: 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 only indicate readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds essential traits: pay-per-query cost, no platform credentials needed, data is not confidential, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing commercial and legal behavior, significantly aiding the agent's decision-making.
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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the purpose then covering deployment and privacy in sequence. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly dense with LGPD details that might be secondary. No redundancy or fluff.
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?
For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, authentication, data sensitivity, and legal responsibility. Gaps remain regarding parameter usage rules and response format, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the annotations' coverage.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the text, the description fails to clarify the 'cpf' and 'cnpj' fields beyond their names. Although these are standard Brazilian tax identifiers, the description offers no conditions (e.g., at least one required, formatting) and does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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' (query) of 'Certidão Negativa de Feitos' from an official source, using specific verb+resource. It distinguishes the tool from its generic siblings (e.g., connect, show_version) by naming the exact legal document and official nature. No ambiguity in what it 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?
Provides clear context: requires prepaid credit, runs on the platform without separate credentials, and covers official Brazilian sources. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or directly compare with alternatives, though siblings are unrelated. The guidance is implied rather than exclusionary, missing a full 5.
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.