Dados cadastrais de uma pessoa física no México a partir do CURP. Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago. Consulta informação de ACESSO PÚBLICO em bases e fontes oficiais (a mesma disponível ao cidadão), não é dado privado nem sigiloso. O cliente é o controlador dos dados e responde pela finalidade legítima (LGPD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Curp | Yes | ||
| completo | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it's hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, is pay-per-query, accesses public official data, and specifies LGPD/data-controller responsibilities. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's operational and legal constraints.
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 four sentences long and includes essential operational details (pay-per-query, no credentials, public data, LGPD compliance). While slightly legalistic, each sentence adds relevant context. It is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what data is returned, but it only says 'dados cadastrais' without specifics. It also fails to explain the 'completo' parameter. However, it provides substantial context about public access, payment, and legal compliance, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the required parameter CURP ('a partir do CURP') but does not explain the optional boolean parameter 'completo' at all. With two parameters, completely failing to describe one is a significant 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 begins with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Dados cadastrais de uma pessoa física no México a partir do CURP' (cadastral data of a physical person in Mexico via CURP). This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve entirely different functions.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for consulting public official records using a CURP, with no credentials required and prepaid credit. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the intended usage is unambiguous.
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.
Tools have clearly distinct purposes: auth, connection status, marketplace operations, data lookup, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. The only slight overlap is between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both reporting connection status, but they serve different contexts.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: mix of bare verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), English verb_noun patterns (report_bug, show_version), Spanish verb_noun (registro_pf_mx_consultar), and noun_noun (toolkit_info). Also, language is mixed (English vs. Spanish).
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the scope is broad and includes many platform-level utilities alongside a single domain-specific tool. The count itself is appropriate, though the mix feels uneven.
For the stated domain (Mexican PF data), only a single consultation operation exists, which is sufficient for public data lookup but lacks any additional operations. The platform tools (marketplace) provide indirect completeness by enabling other MCPs, but that shifts focus away from the server's primary name.