MPT SE: 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is paid per query (prepaid credit), requires no platform credentials, and returns the same non-confidential data available to citizens, plus LGPD compliance responsibilities. No contradictions.
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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary operational details (payment, credentials, data classification) but is slightly wordy, particularly the LGPD clause. No fluff, but could be tighter.
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 has no output schema, so the description should clarify expected results. It explains cost and data source but does not describe what the response contains (e.g., certificate validity) nor that a CPF or CNPJ is required. Given its simplicity, the missing return-value info and parameter guidance leave notable gaps.
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 has two string parameters (cpf, cnpj) with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain that these are Brazilian taxpayer ID types, that at least one is required, or how they relate to the certificate query. It merely repeats the general purpose, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter values.
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 opens with 'MPT SE: Certidão Negativa de Feitos, consulta em fonte oficial' which clearly states the verb (consulta) and the resource (Certidão Negativa de Feitos from MPT SE). It further explains that it queries official Brazilian sources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate and connect which are platform-level operations.
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 clear context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and charges per consultation via prepaid credit. This implies when to use the tool (for paid official data queries). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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.