Consulta cadastro de um fornecedor pelo CNPJ ou CPF.
Endpoint Dados Abertos /modulo-fornecedor/1_consultarFornecedor.
Devolve razão social, CNAE, porte da empresa, natureza jurídica.
Cache 1h.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cnpj_cpf | Yes | CNPJ (14 dígitos) ou CPF (11 dígitos) do fornecedor, com ou sem pontuação. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact Dados Abertos endpoint path and the 1-hour cache. No contradictions with annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded: main action first, then endpoint, return fields, and cache behavior. Every line adds information and there is no redundant filler.
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?
With a single required parameter, a full output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete for a simple lookup tool. It captures the endpoint, cache TTL, and output contents; the only notable gap is explicit routing among the many supplier-related sibling tools.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already specifies that cnpj_cpf is a CNPJ (14 digits) or CPF (11 digits), with or without punctuation. The description only restates 'CNPJ ou CPF' and adds no new semantic detail about format, validation, or edge cases.
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 a specific action ('Consulta cadastro de um fornecedor pelo CNPJ ou CPF'), identifies the resource (supplier registration), and lists the returned fields (razão social, CNAE, porte, natureza jurídica). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling supplier tools such as compras_fornecedor_cnpj_receita or compras_perfil_fornecedor_completo.
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 intended use is implied by the stated lookup by CNPJ/CPF and the listed return fields, giving an agent some context for selection. However, the description does not name any alternative tools, state when-not-to-use it, or clarify how it differs from the other supplier-lookup siblings.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources, and descriptions are extremely detailed, often explicitly warning about look-alikes. However, there is real overlap between composite and single-purpose tools (e.g., compras_checar_sancoes_fornecedor vs compras_perfil_fornecedor_completo vs compras_sancao_*), and similar-looking pairs like compras_contratos_consultar vs compras_contrato_comprasnet_consultar or compras_arp_listar vs compras_pncp_atas_listar require careful reading. With 100 tools, an agent will still face meaningful selection ambiguity.
The dominant pattern is snake_case with a compras_ prefix, but the order and style vary: some are domain-first (compras_catmat_buscar), some are verb-first (compras_buscar_contratacoes_similares), and some are bare entity names with no verb (compras_sancao_ceis, compras_pncp_modalidades). The many listar/consultar/buscar variants are readable, but the convention is not predictable enough for a 100-tool surface.
100 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, regardless of domain breadth. Even if each tool has a legitimate upstream endpoint, this volume will heavily tax context windows and make reliable tool selection harder. Many tools could be consolidated into parameterized families (e.g., contratos, sancoes, pncp resources).
The server covers the Brazilian procurement domain remarkably well: catalogs, ARPs, 14.133 contracts, legacy regime, price research, suppliers, sanctions, PGC/PCA, PNCP, and Comprasnet contract subresources. Minor gaps remain, such as listing a supplier's full contract history without specifying an órgão, and some upstream limitations are only papered over with client-side workarounds.