Prefeitura MG Itaúna: 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?
Transparently states that it is a query (read-only), not handling confidential data, and mentions LGPD compliance. Combined with annotations (readOnly, idempotent), it fully discloses 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 somewhat repetitive (e.g., 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'hospedado pela plataforma' are echoed), but it remains concise overall and is structured as a single coherent paragraph.
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?
Provides useful context such as payment method, data origin, and LGPD compliance, but does not explain the expected output or the relationship between the two parameters, leaving some ambiguity.
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 lists 'cpf' and 'cnpj' as strings, but there is no description or guidance on whether one is required, if both can be used, or constraints. The parameter names are self-explanatory for Brazilian tax IDs, but the lack of semantics beyond that is a gap.
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 (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) for the municipality of Itaúna, MG, via an official source.
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?
Provides context on usage: hosted on the platform, requires prepaid credits, no credentials, and clarifies that it uses official Brazilian sources. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives.
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.