Skip to main content
Glama
radar-cnpj-mcp

radar-cnpj-mcp

by wendersoon

Buscar CNAE

buscar_cnae
Read-only

Find CNAE codes by activity description or code prefix to classify and filter Brazilian companies by economic activity.

Instructions

Encontra códigos CNAE pela descrição da atividade (ex.: "oficina mecânica", "odontologia") ou pelo início do código (ex.: "4520").

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": {
      "termo": "<termo>"
    },
    "name": "buscar_cnae"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
termoYesPalavras da atividade ou início do código.
limiteNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that matching accepts either free-text activity words or a code prefix, but says nothing about result ordering, truncation at the limit, or what happens with an ambiguous term — useful context that is missing.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parenthetical examples carry real disambiguating value rather than filler. Nothing is redundant.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the input side adequately but leaves the agent guessing about output shape (list of codes with descriptions?) and the effect of the default limit of 20. Adequate, not complete.

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 50%: 'termo' is described in the schema, but its meaning is genuinely enriched by the description's two accepted input modes (activity phrase vs. code prefix). The 'limite' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the description unable to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb and resource ('Encontra códigos CNAE') plus two concrete examples that pin down what a match looks like, so an agent knows this returns codes rather than companies. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings such as buscar_empresas, though the CNAE subject matter already separates it clearly.

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?

Usage is implied: use it when you have an activity description or a partial code and need the corresponding CNAE. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over buscar_empresas or detalhar_empresa, and no note on prerequisites or result limits.

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