SEFAZ MG: CADIN, 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?
The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: it's hosted, requires no platform credentials, charges per query with prepaid credits, and the data is publicly available citizen info. It also discloses LGPD compliance responsibilities. While the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already indicate safety, the description enriches understanding by clarifying the data source is public information and the client is the data controller. This goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 moderately concise but tries to stuff a lot of legal and platform information into one sentence. While the content is valuable, the structure is a run-on with semicolons. The key operational details (what data, how it's queried) are present, but the legal and platform notes could be better organized. At 348 characters, it's on the longer side for what it communicates, but no sentence is wasted.
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 2-param, 0-required query tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the basic context: what it queries, how it's billed, and legal responsibilities. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is complete enough. However, information about expected input formats (masked CPF/CNPJ vs digits-only), rate limits, and the actual response format is missing. The description could also clarify whether a CPF is required for CNPJ queries or vice versa.
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 0 params documented in the description and 0% schema coverage, the description does nothing to explain the difference between 'cpf' and 'cnpj' parameters. The schema is minimal (just string types with no descriptions). The description's 'consulta' (query) and the tool name suggest these are identifier parameters, but no details are provided on format, validation, or which one to use. The agent has to infer semantics solely from parameter names and the LGPD context.
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 starts with 'SEFAZ MG: CADIN, consulta em fonte oficial' which clearly identifies the tool as a query against the official CADIN source for SEFAZ-MG. However, it doesn't explicitly state what 'consultar' returns or provide a clear verb+resource structure beyond the implicit 'query CADIN'. The description also mixes legal disclaimers and platform details, which dilutes the core purpose statement. It distinguishes itself somewhat from siblings by naming the specific government source, but the purpose could be clearer.
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: it's a hosted platform with prepaid credits, no platform credentials needed, and the data is the same as available to citizens (not confidential). It states the client is the data controller and responsible for legitimate purpose under LGPD. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs. alternatives or mention specific exclusions. The alternatives are not named, and there's no clear guidance on when not to use this tool. It provides context on pricing and legal compliance but lacks direct usage direction.
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.