MPT SP Campinas: 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 indicate read-only and non-destructive. The description adds significant context: prepaid credit payment, no platform credentials required, official Brazilian sources, data non-confidentiality, and LGPD responsibility. This goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 moderately concise, with the main purpose front-loaded. It includes several clauses about hosting, payment, and privacy, but each adds relevant context. It is not overly verbose, though slightly run-on.
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 query tool, it covers payment and data handling, but it omits parameter requirements and expected return behavior. With no output schema provided, the description should explain what the tool expects or returns, making it incomplete.
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 description does not explain the cpf and cnpj parameters, their purpose, or whether at least one is required. The input schema shows both as optional, and the description carries no clarification, leaving the agent without essential parameter guidance.
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: querying a Certidão Negativa de Feitos from MPT SP Campinas using the verb 'consulta'. It names the specific resource and is distinct from sibling tools that are platform-level operations (e.g., authenticate, 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 for checking negative certificates and mentions payment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks clear 'when-to-use' guidance beyond context.
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.