SEFAZ RS: CADIN e CFIL, 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it's paid per query, official data, not confidential, and the client controls data under LGPD. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure about cost and legal responsibility that annotations don't 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 a single block of text combining multiple pieces of info: what it does, payment, official source, LGPD. It's not clearly structured or front-loaded with the core purpose. Length is moderate, but the lack of paragraph breaks or bullet points reduces readability. It earns a pass for not being verbose, but structure is suboptimal.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value. It does not mention what data is returned or its format. It also ignores the parameters entirely, leaving the agent to guess how to construct a valid query. Given the tool's purpose (querying official records), it's incomplete for effective 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?
The input schema has two parameters (cpf, cnpj) with no description or enum. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention them at all. It fails to explain that either CPF or CNPJ can be provided, or any combination logic. The description adds no semantic value for parameters.
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 states 'SEFAZ RS: CADIN e CFIL, consulta em fonte oficial' which clearly indicates a query/consultation tool for these official records. It specifies the resource (CADIN/CFIL) and the verb (consulta). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only consult tool among them, though it doesn't name alternatives.
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?
Provides context: hosted by the platform, no platform credentials, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and LGPD responsibility. It implies when to use (official source verification) but doesn't explicitly state conditions or alternatives. No exclusions are given, so it's somewhat helpful but not fully explicit.
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.