MPT RN: 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: prepaid credit cost, no platform credentials needed, non-confidential data, and LGPD compliance. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and constraints.
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 and front-loaded, beginning with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information: purpose, hosting/payment, data nature, and legal responsibility. No redundant fluff is present, though a bit more structure could improve 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?
For a simple query tool with no output schema and two basic parameters, the description covers essential operational aspects like cost, authentication-free access, and legal obligations. However, it omits expected return format and parameter details, making it slightly incomplete but not severely lacking.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention 'cpf' or 'cnpj' parameters at all. It fails to explain whether these are alternative identifiers, whether one is required, or how to use them, leaving a significant gap for a two-parameter tool.
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: 'consulta em fonte oficial' and names 'Certidão Negativa de Feitos' (Negative Certificate of Court Records). It specifically identifies Brazilian official sources, which distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'connect'.
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 usage by describing the query nature and payment requirement ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools, so context is present but not explicit.
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.