MPT RJ: 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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses the cost model (prepaid per query), the nature of the data (public, not confidential), and the LGPD responsibility of the client. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting any annotations.
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 the core purpose. It adds relevant operational and legal details in a structured way. The legal disclaimer about LGPD, while necessary, adds a bit of length, but overall it remains efficient.
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, cost, source, and legal aspects, but it omits any guidance on parameter usage (CPF/CNPJ) or expected return format. Since there is no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this is a notable completeness gap for a tool that still needs an identifier to execute.
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 input schema includes 'cpf' and 'cnpj' with no property descriptions, and the tool description makes no mention of these parameters or how to use them. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to clarify that one of these identifiers is presumably required for a certificate lookup, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from the parameter names alone.
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 specifies the action: consulta (query) of the 'Certidão Negativa de Feitos' (negative certificate of proceedings) from MPT RJ. It names the specific official source and resource, clearly distinguishing it from the unrelated sibling platform tools like authenticate and marketplace.
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 practical usage context: hosted by the platform, no platform credentials needed, and prepaid credit per query. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, it gives enough guidance on when and how to use the tool, especially since sibling tools are platform-level utilities rather than alternate lookup methods.
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.