Prefeitura MG Betim: Certidão Negativa de Débitos, 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, idempotent, non-destructive, but description adds payment method, hosting, and LGPD responsibility, which provides value beyond the annotations.
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 sentence but conveys key points (official source, payment, non-secret, legal responsibility). It's concise and front-loaded with the main purpose.
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?
No output schema, so description should describe the return. It does not mention what the response contains (e.g., certificate status). Also lacks details about parameter requirements (which one to provide). It gives some context but insufficient for full usage.
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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage invented parameters CPF and CNPJ have no explanation. The description does not mention these parameters at all, leaving the agent to guess what inputs are needed. With zero coverage, description must compensate, but it fails.
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 purpose: to consult a negative debt certificate from Betim municipality's official source. It identifies the specific resource (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) and the verb
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?
It states it queries official sources and is not confidential, but it doesn't explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives. It does clarify that it's a paid service with prepaid credit)Skip
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.