Portal da Transparência: Busca, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
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?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the pay-per-query model with prepaid credits, clarifies that the data is official and non-confidential (não é dado sigiloso), and highlights LGPD compliance responsibilities. This complements the readOnly and idempotent hints with operational and legal insights.
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 a single, fairly compact paragraph that covers purpose, cost, data type, and legal responsibility without excessive verbosity. Each clause adds value, though the structure could be tighter (e.g., separating legal notes).
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 is simple (one parameter) and annotations cover safety, but the description omits expected output or response format, and does not clarify query limitations or result handling. For a paid, external API, such details might be crucial, but the absence of an output schema and minimal description leave 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 only one parameter 'query' with no description, and the tool description provides no guidance on its format, allowed values, or examples. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving the query parameter ambiguous.
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 performs search/consultation on the official Transparency Portal ('Busca, consulta em fonte oficial'), which is specific and actionable. It differentiates itself from the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) by focusing on querying official data.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions operational aspects like prepaid credits and lack of platform credentials, but offers no criteria for selection or exclusions (e.g., 'use for X, not for Y'). This leaves the agent without decision support.
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.