Skip to main content
Glama

Indicadores PJ (Transparência)

by io.github.mcp-dir

transparencia_indicadores_pj_consultar

Read-onlyIdempotent

Indicadores de uma empresa no Portal da Transparência a partir do CNPJ, como sanções, convênios e contratos. 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).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: no credentials needed, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and that the data is public access, not private. This enriches the readOnly/idempotent hints provided in 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 three sentences and front-loaded with purpose, but includes some legal boilerplate (LGPD) that slightly dilutes the core message. Still, it's reasonably concise.

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?

The description covers purpose, authentication, cost, and data sensitivity, but lacks detail on the 'completo' parameter and the return format. Given the absence of an output schema, more information would improve completeness.

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 explains the CNPJ parameter is the lookup key, but provides no explanation for the 'completo' boolean parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify all 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 retrieves indicators (sanctions, agreements, contracts) for a company on the Transparency Portal using CNPJ, which is a specific verb+resource and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage context (querying company indicators via CNPJ) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are unrelated, reducing the need, but no explicit guidance is given.

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

All Indicadores PJ (Transparência) 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
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authenticate handles login, connect reports connection status, marketplace manages MCP discovery/execution, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays version, toolkit_info shows installed state, and the last performs the actual transparency query. No two tools overlap in function.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: English platform tools use short verbs/nouns (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), while the sole domain tool is a long Portuguese phrase (transparencia_indicadores_pj_consultar). The verb is at the end and the language differs, breaking any predictable pattern.

Tool Count3/5

Seven tools is within a typical range, but the count is skewed: six are generic platform utilities and only one serves the server's stated purpose (PJ indicators). The composition feels unbalanced, though not extreme in either direction.

Completeness3/5

The domain surface is minimal—only a single consult operation for CNPJ indicators. There are no discovery or metadata tools (e.g., listing available indicators or describing fields), which limits agent flexibility. The platform tools cover their own lifecycle, but the transparency domain itself lacks depth.

Resources