Prefeitura PE Recife: CPOM, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cnpj | 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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses that the tool is hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credit, does not need platform credentials, returns only non-confidential data, and is subject to LGPD compliance. These behavioral and contextual details add significant value.
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 succinct, covering the essential points in three sentences without redundancy. Front-loads the purpose, then provides relevant operational and legal context. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
For a simple query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, pricing model, data source, confidentiality, and legal responsibility. However, it omits any information about the response format or typical use cases, and does not explain the acronym CPOM, which could be unclear to some agents.
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 a single required parameter 'cnpj' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention or explain the 'cnpj' parameter at all, leaving agents to infer its purpose from the parameter name alone. 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 uses the specific verb 'consulta' (query) and clearly identifies the resource as CPOM data from official Brazilian sources. It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) by indicating its domain-specific purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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 implies usage context by mentioning payment per query and lack of platform credentials, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No named alternatives or scenarios are given.
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.