Prefeitura SC Itajaí: 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?
Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important operational traits: no platform credentials are needed, each query is paid via prepaid credit, the data is non-confidential and publicly available to citizens, and LGPD controller responsibilities apply. This gives the agent essential context about cost, auth, and data sensitivity.
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 reasonably compact and front-loaded with the core purpose; the subsequent sentences about hosting, payment, and LGPD add useful context. It is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary but not padded.
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 description covers business context, source legitimacy, payment, and privacy obligations, which is good for tool selection. However, it omits how to use the cpf/cnpj parameters and what the returned certificate contains, and with no output schema this leaves meaningful gaps for successful invocation.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description had to explain cpf/cnpj, but it never mentions either parameter or their roles. The schema only provides string types with no descriptions, and the description does not compensate, leaving the agent to guess how to populate the two optional identifiers.
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 specifies a concrete action and resource: 'consulta em fonte oficial' of the 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos' from Prefeitura SC Itajaí. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as authenticate, marketplace, and report_bug.
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 provides clear context for use: the query comes from an official Brazilian source, requires no platform credentials, and consumes prepaid credit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the domain context is sufficient given the unrelated sibling set.
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.