MPT MG: 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 declare readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds value by mentioning prepaid payment, lack of platform credentials, non-confidential data, and LGPD responsibility. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.
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 a single paragraph with essential operational info (payment, hosting, legal) and purpose. It's a bit dense but not verbose. Front-loaded with purpose.
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?
No output schema, but description explains it's a consultation of official data, not confidentialasi no details on response format or error handling. Given the tool's simplicity, it's adequate but could be enhanced with more details.
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 has no descriptions per parameterts, and the description does not explain the role of cpf/cnpj. Since coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it only says it's a consultation. The names are self-explanatory but without guidance on optionality or format, it's weak.
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: 'Certidão Negativa de Feitos, consulta em fonte oficial' – a specific verb (consultar) and resource (negative certificate). It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug by focusing on official Brazilian data consultation.
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 implies it's for official consultation, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. It mentions it's for official Brazilian dataional purposes and the client's responsibility, but no direct guidance on conditions or alternatives.
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.