fiscal

Emitir CT-e

cte_emitir

Emite CT-e (Conhecimento de Transporte Eletrônico). Requer serviço CT-e habilitado no cadastro da empresa e certificado digital A1 ou A3 configurado.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`Cfop`	Yes	CFOP de 4 dígitos. Primeiro dígito: 1/2/3 = entrada, 5/6/7 = saída.
`Lote`	No
`Carga`	Yes	Dados da carga transportada (produto predominante, lista de detalhes, documentos fiscais que acompanham). OBRIGATÓRIO. Para Tipo de serviço 0/1/2/6/7/8 também exige Carga.Documentos com ao menos 1 NF-e referenciada.
`Modal`	Yes	Modal de transporte (rodoviário, aéreo, aquaviário, ferroviário, dutoviário, multimodal). OBRIGATÓRIO. Tipo: 1=Rodoviário, 2=Aéreo, 3=Aquaviário, 4=Ferroviário, 5=Dutoviário, 6=Multimodal.
`Serie`	No
`Codigo`	No
`Numero`	No
`Retira`	No
`Imposto`	No
`Servico`	Yes	Dados do serviço prestado (Tipo, CodMunicipioInicio, CodMunicipioFim com 7 dígitos cada, MunicipioInicio/MunicipioFim, ValorPrestacao > 0, ValorReceber > 0). OBRIGATÓRIO. Tipo: 0=Normal, 1=Subcontratação, 2=Redespacho, 3=RedespachoIntermediario, 4=ServicoVinculadoMultimodal.
`TipoCte`	Yes	Tipo do CT-e. Valores: 0 - CT-e Normal (caso mais comum); 1 - CT-e de Complemento de Valores; 2 - CT-e de Anulação; 3 - CT-e Substituto
`Tomador`	No
`DtEmissao`	No	Data/hora ISO 8601 (ex: 2026-07-22T13:45:00-03:00)
`Expedidor`	No
`Remetente`	No
`Observacao`	No
`Destinatario`	No
`TipoAmbiente`	Yes	Identificação do ambiente da SEFAZ. Valores: 1 - Produção (emissão real, irreversível); 2 - Homologação (teste, sem valor fiscal)
`ModeloDocumento`	Yes	Modelo do Conhecimento de Transporte Eletrônico. Valores: 57 - CT-e (Conhecimento de Transporte Eletrônico); 67 - CT-e OS (Outros Serviços de transporte)
`NaturezaOperacao`	Yes	Descrição da natureza da operação (ex: "Prestação de serviço de transporte").
`IdentificadorInterno`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chave`	No
`erros`	No	Lista de erros quando a operação falha. Vazia em caso de sucesso. Cada item traz codigo, descricao e correcao.
`serie`	No
`avisos`	No	Avisos não bloqueantes. Pode vir preenchida mesmo em sucesso.
`numero`	No
`status`	No	Status do resultado da operação: 1 = sucesso; 2 = erro (a lista erros é preenchida).
`base64Xml`	No
`base64DACTe`	No
`tipoAmbiente`	No

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds prerequisites (CT-e service enabled, digital certificate A1/A3), but it does not disclose behavioral traits of emitting a legal fiscal document, such as irreversibility in production, validation failure risks, or potential side effects. Annotations provide only openWorldHint and no safety profile, so the description carries the transparency burden and falls short.

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 two sentences, appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential prerequisites. No fluff or redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (21 parameters, nested objects, fiscal emission), the description is too thin. It lacks an overview of the CT-e process, potential errors, or warnings about production emissions. While an output schema exists, the description does not provide enough context to confidently invoke this tool among many sibling emit tools.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description provides no information about parameters. Schema coverage is only 43%, leaving many parameters without descriptions, and the description does not compensate for these gaps. For example, it does not mention that ModeloDocumento can be 57 or 67, or that TipoAmbiente distinguishes production vs homologação.

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 emits CT-e (Conhecimento de Transporte Eletrônico) with the verb 'Emite' and the specific resource 'CT-e', expanded with the full name. This distinguishes it from sibling emit tools like nfe_emitir or mdfe_emitir, which target different document types.

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: the tool is for CT-e emission, which is evident from the name and description. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. It does mention prerequisites (service enabled, certificate), but these are requirements rather than usage guidance.

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

All fiscal tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with thorough descriptions that clarify overlaps (e.g., cliente_consultar vs cadastro_consultar). Even similar operations like arquivo_baixar variants have explicit scope differences.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a noun_verb pattern (e.g., cliente_consultar, evento_cancelar, produto_criar), but a few deviate (e.g., 'health', 'cte_desacordo'). Overall consistent enough for easy recognition.

Tool Count4/5

34 tools is high but justified given the complexity of fiscal document management across multiple document types (NF-e, NFS-e, CT-e, MDF-e, etc.) and required CRUD, events, and auxiliary operations.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers create/read/update/delete for clients, products, and tax rules, plus emission, cancellation, correction, and status checks for various documents. Minor gaps like dedicated NFS-e cancellation are handled by generic event tools.

Emitir CT-e

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources