MPT MT: 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 mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: no platform credentials, per-query prepaid billing, non-confidential official data, and LGPD controller responsibility. This goes beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.
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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, followed by operational, billing, and legal context. Each sentence contributes meaningful information, though the LGPD sentence is somewhat dense but still 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 covers purpose, billing, authentication model, and data sensitivity, while annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema and no parameter guidance, the agent is left uncertain about expected return values and how to supply CPF/CNPJ, leaving a notable completeness gap.
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 provides only 'cpf' and 'cnpj' with no descriptions and 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain how these parameters relate to each other or how to choose one. The param names are recognizable, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema.
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 operation: 'Consultar' a 'Certidão Negativa de Feitos' from official Brazilian sources. It names the specific resource and action, and the sibling tools are generic platform utilities, so this tool is easily distinguished.
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 gives clear usage context: it is a paid, prepaid-credit consultation against official public sources, requiring no platform credentials. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient among the listed siblings.
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.