MPT SP: 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, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: prepaid pay-per-query cost, no credential requirement, official Brazilian sources, non-confidential data, and LGPD responsibilities. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence contributes relevant information about cost, authentication, data source, or legal obligations. It is appropriately sized for the tool's low structural complexity.
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, authentication, data source, and legal context well, but it omits details about the input parameters and the expected return value. Since there is no output schema and no parameter descriptions, those omissions leave meaningful gaps for correct invocation.
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 two parameters, cpf and cnpj, with no descriptions and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention either parameter at all, leaving the agent without guidance on which identifier to provide, whether at least one is required, or formatting expectations.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: consulting a 'Certidão Negativa de Feitos' from MPT SP through an official source. The verb 'consulta' plus the specific resource and jurisdiction make it unambiguous and distinct from the listed sibling tools.
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 gives useful usage context: no platform credentials are needed, the operation requires prepaid credit, and it uses official public sources. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for a single-purpose consultation tool.
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.