Prefeitura RN Touros: 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?
Adds valuable context beyond annotations: mentions hosting, no platform credentials, pay-per-query, and data privacy (LGPD). These are not in the schema or annotations徒 independently useful for the agent's decision-making. No contradictions with the readOnly hint.
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 core purpose, followed by practical details. Each sentence adds meaningful information without fluff. Slightly verbose but still clear and easy to parse.
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 read-only, idempotent annotations and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, official source, payment mechanism, and data privacy. No additional information is needed for correct 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 two string fields (cpf, cnpj) with no descriptions taskra. The tool name and description make it obvious these are Brazilian taxpayer identifiers for querying the certificate, so the description compensates adequately despite 0% 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 clearly states the tool queries a Negative Debt Certificate (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) from the Prefeitura RN Touros, distinguishing it from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.). The verb 'consulta' plus specific resource makes the purpose 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 implicitly indicates this tool is for querying a specific certificate, and the payment/prepaid credit hint sets expectations. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the highly specialized purpose and distinct siblings make the usage context clear enough.
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.