Tribunal STJ: Certidão Negativa, 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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses additional behavioral traits: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid via prepaid credit, and clarifies data handling (non-confidential, LGPD compliance). This provides useful transparency about side effects and prerequisites.
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 contains redundant phrases (e.g., repeating 'consulta' and 'fontes oficiais') and extraneous LGPD context. It is not overly long but could be more concise and structured to convey essential points directly.
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 description provides general context (official source, payment, data privacy) but lacks specifics about return values, error handling, or input constraints. For a simple consultation tool, it is fairly complete, but gaps remain regarding what the output looks like and how to handle failures.
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 schema lists only 'cpf' and 'cnpj' with no descriptions. The description does not explain their roles, optionality, or relationship (e.g., whether one or both are required). It does not compensate for the lack of schema coverage, leaving parameter meaning ambiguous.
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 clearly states the tool's function: consulting negative certificates from STJ via official sources. It specifies the action (consulta) and the resource (certidão negativa do STJ), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect.
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?
While the description mentions operational details (official source, payment, no credentials), it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance such as 'use this when you need to verify a negative certificate' or contrasts with other tools for similar tasks.
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.