Skip to main content
Glama

Protestos SP

by io.github.mcp-dir

protestos_sp_consultar

Read-onlyIdempotent

Existência e dados de protestos de pessoas físicas e jurídicas em cartórios do estado de São Paulo. Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago. Consulta informação de crédito em bureaus e bases oficiais. O uso exige base legal (ex.: análise de risco solicitada pelo titular ou relação contratual). O cliente é o controlador e responde pela finalidade (LGPD).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
CpfYes
CnpjYes
completoNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it is hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, is paid per query with prepaid credit, and imposes legal obligations under LGPD (client is controller). This clarifies the operational and compliance aspects without contradicting 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a compact paragraph with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds relevant information (hosting, payment, legal basis). It is not overly verbose and all content earns its place, though a bulleted structure could improve scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: data source, payment model, and legal requirements. However, it omits details about the 'completo' parameter, the fact that both Cpf and Cnpj are required, and any details about response format or limitations. These gaps make it incomplete for an agent that needs to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not explain the parameters (Cpf, Cnpj, completo) and schema description coverage is 0%. It indirectly references CPF/CNPJ via 'pessoas físicas e jurídicas', but the purpose of 'completo' is left ambiguous. The schema requires both Cpf and Cnpj, yet the description does not clarify this unusual requirement, leaving the agent without enough information to correctly populate the parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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 the existence and data of protests (protestos) for individuals and legal entities in São Paulo notary offices. It uses a specific verb (consultar) and identifies the resource (protest data), which distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context for when to use the tool: for credit information from bureaus and official databases, with a required legal basis (e.g., risk analysis requested by the data subject or contractual relationship). It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the siblings are not related to credit consultations, so the guidance is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Protestos SP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, causing slight overlap. The domain-specific protestos_sp_consultar is unique and well-separated from the platform utilities.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: one-word verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), an English verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), a noun_noun (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese compound (protestos_sp_consultar). No unifying pattern is evident.

Tool Count3/5

Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the server name suggests a specialized domain while only one tool is domain-specific. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the composition feel unbalanced for the stated theme.

Completeness4/5

The domain tool provides the core query capability, and the marketplace tool enables discovery and invocation of additional MCPs, covering many potential gaps. However, the domain-specific surface itself is minimal with no supplementary operations like reporting or export.

Resources