MPT MS: 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credits, and client is data controller under LGPD. It does not contradict annotations, but it doesn't detail response format or potential delays/costs beyond prepaid credit.
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?
Description is a single, dense paragraph, front-loaded with specific purpose and key operational details. All sentences provide relevant info, though it could be structured with bullet points for better readability.
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?
Given it's a simple query tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, payment, and legal context. However, it lacks details like whether both CPF and CNPJ are accepted simultaneously, and what the response contains.
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 a 'cpf' and 'cnpj' parameter, but description does not mention them explicitly. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but only states CPF or CNPJ in the context. It doesn't explain whether one is required or how they are used together.
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 queries official Brazilian sources for negative certificates of court records (Certidão Negativa de Feitos) using CPF or CNPJ. It is distinct from siblings, which include authentication, marketplace, and utilities, so purpose is clear.
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 explains that it queries official sources and is available to citizens, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives. Since sibling tools are mostly unrelated, the context is clear but no exclusions or alternative guidance is given.
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.