Verifica indício de óbito de uma pessoa a partir do CPF, em bases oficiais. Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago. Consulta informação de ACESSO PÚBLICO em bases e fontes oficiais (a mesma disponível ao cidadão), não é dado privado nem sigiloso. O cliente é o controlador dos dados e responde pela finalidade legítima (LGPD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cpf | Yes | ||
| completo | 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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by stating the data is public, not private or confidential, that the client is data controller under LGPD, and that there is a usage cost involved. This adds context beyond annotations, though it does not describe the response format or rate limits.
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 and front-loaded with the main functionality, followed by relevant operational details. It does not include excessive fluff, though it could be tightened by removing some legal language, but overall it is appropriate in length.
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 the core purpose, cost, data accessibility, and legal responsibilities, which is strong context. However, it does not specify the meaning of the 'completo' parameter or describe the expected return structure beyond 'indício de óbito.' Given the lack of an output schema, this leaves some ambiguity for the agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that the CPF is the key input ('a partir do CPF'), but it does not explain the 'completo' boolean parameter. The description leaves this parameter entirely ambiguous, which is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.
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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Verifica indício de óbito de uma pessoa a partir do CPF, em bases oficiais.' This is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tools, which are platform utilities rather than data lookup tools. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 practical context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, and is pay-per-query with prepaid credit. This tells an agent when it is appropriate to use this tool (i.e., when CPF lookup is needed and the user has credit), but it does not explicitly exclude alternative approaches or mention any when-not-to-use conditions. Therefore, it offers clear usage context without explicit exclusions.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes (marketplace, obito_consultar, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). The only ambiguity is between authenticate and connect, both of which deal with authentication and connection status, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong one.
Naming styles are inconsistent: some tools use single verbs (authenticate, connect), some use snake_case verb_noun (obito_consultar, report_bug), and others use noun forms (marketplace, toolkit_info) or mixed (show_version). There is also a mix of English and Portuguese, further reducing predictability.
7 tools is a reasonable count, falling within the typical 3-15 range. The count is appropriate, though the server mixes a single domain-specific tool with several platform-level utilities, which makes the scope slightly uneven but not excessive.
The server is named 'Óbito' and the core purpose appears to be death-status consultation via obito_consultar, but the tool surface includes only that one domain operation. There are no supporting tools like query history, batch lookup, or results reporting, so the domain coverage is notably shallow. The platform tools are broad, but they don't compensate for the limited domain-specific functionality.