Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
brdata-mcp

brdata-mcp

by thomenz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Lookup Brazilian company (full due diligence)

lookup_company_full

Retrieve a company's full Brazilian profile including partners, shareholders, and government sanction checks (CEIS/CNEP) using its CNPJ. Paid service ($0.10).

Instructions

Full profile: everything in lookup_company plus partners/shareholders (QSA) and government sanction checks (CEIS/CNEP). Paid ($0.10).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cnpj": "<cnpj>"
    },
    "name": "lookup_company_full"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cnpjYesBrazilian company tax ID (CNPJ), 14 digits, with or without punctuation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only discloses the paid nature ($0.10) and scope, but does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or other operational traits. For a read tool, more behavioral context would be helpful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the key purpose and then adding paid detail. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool without output schema, the description provides essential context: scope (full profile) and cost. It is nearly complete, though it could mention output format or any limitations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'cnpj' parameter. The tool description does not add any additional parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a full profile including partners/shareholders and sanction checks, distinguishing it from the sibling lookup_company. The verb 'lookup' and resource 'Brazilian company full due diligence' are specific.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use: when full profile with QSA and sanctions is needed, and mentions it is paid ($0.10). It differentiates from lookup_company by saying 'everything in lookup_company plus', but lacks explicit exclusions or when not to use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools