Retrieve caveats about CNPJ data dump limitations, including evidence and build report details (month, scope, IBGE-unmatched municipalities).
As armadilhas do dump do CNPJ, com evidência, e o relatório do build (mês, recorte, municípios que não casaram com o IBGE).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the content (caveats, evidence, build report) but not behavior such as return format, whether the optional id filters results, side effects, or read-only status.
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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main subject ('armadilhas do dump do CNPJ') and adds meaningful detail about evidence and the build report.
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 tool with an undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It gives content context but omits how the optional id is usedSuccessful.
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 has a single optional id parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess what id refers to and how it affects the returned caveats or build report.
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 identifies the tool's content: CNPJ dump pitfalls with evidence and the build report, including month, cut, and unmatched municipalities. This distinguishes it from the sibling listing/counting tools, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'shows'.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (empresas_contagem, empresas_listar, empresas_cnpj). The reader must infer that this tool is for data quality caveats, but no usage context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.