MTE: Processos por Empregador, 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 | ||
| cnpj_raiz | 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?
Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds behavioral details like the payment requirement, the official source, non-confidential nature of data, and LGPD compliance. These are meaningful additions that help the agent understand the tool's behavior.
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, with multiple sentences but no unnecessary filler. It is well-structured and covers several relevant aspects without being 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?
Although it provides context about the data source, payment, and legal compliance, it does not describe the expected output or the exact parameters. With no output schema and no parameter explanations, the description is incomplete for a user to fully understand how to use the tool.
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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explain the cpf, cnpj, or cnpj_raiz parameters. The overall employer context is implied, but the specific purpose and usage of each parameter remain unclear, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 that the tool queries processes by employer from an official Brazilian source, which distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools. However, it could be more specific about the exact nature of the processes returned.
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 usage context, such as the need for prepaid credits and access to official sources, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. Since no direct alternatives exist among siblings, this is not a major issue, but it lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance.
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.