MPT SC: 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?
The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it is a paid service with pre-paid credit, queries official sources, and clarifies data responsibility under LGPD. These are useful non-obvious traits, though it does not mention potential side effects or failure modes.
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, dense sentence that covers multiple aspects (purpose, payment, data source, privacy) without excessive wordiness. It could be broken into clearer segments, but it is not overly verbose.
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 tool lacks an output schema, and the description does not explain the return format or possible errors. It also does not specify which parameter is required or optional, leaving significant gaps for a user to understand the tool's full behavior.
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 parameter names (cpf, cnpj) without any descriptions. The description does not clarify the meaning, requiredness, or validation rules of these parameters, leaving semantic ambiguity.
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 function: consulting negative certificates from official sources. It is specific about the type of certificate (Certidão Negativa) and distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.
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 some context (payment, data responsibility) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks direct guidance on appropriate usage scenarios.
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.