Skip to main content
Glama

fiscal

by br.com.brasilnfe

Listar notas fiscais

nota_listar
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lista NF-e/NFC-e/NFS-e emitidas ou recebidas pela empresa em um intervalo de datas. Suporta filtros por chave, número, status e tipo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
DtFimNoData final da busca
DtInicioNoData inicial da busca
TipoAmbienteNoTipo de ambiente (Padrão 1 - Produção) Valores: 1 - Produção; 2 - Homologação
TipoParticipacaoNoComo a empresa participa das notas de entrada (Padrão 0 - Destinatário). Somente para TipoDocumentoFiscal = 0. Valores: 0 - Destinatário (comportamento padrão); 1 - Transportadora (NF-e onde a empresa é citada como transportadora ou terceiro autorizado); 2 - Ambos
TipoDocumentoFiscalNoTipo do documento fiscal (Padrão 0 - Entrada) Valores: 0 - Entradas; 1 - Saídas
IdentificadorInternoNoBusca notas que possui o código interno informado (somente saídas)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ErrorNoMensagem de erro da operação. Vazia ("") quando foi bem-sucedida.
NotasNo
AvisosNoAvisos não bloqueantes. Pode vir preenchida mesmo em emissão bem-sucedida.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the date-range and invoice-type context, but its claim of filters for chave, número, and status conflicts with the schema and is a misleading disclosure; it also omits pagination/limit behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded in the first sentence, but the second sentence contains an inaccurate list of filters. A concise description is only valuable if every sentence earns its place, and this one does not.

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?

With a rich schema, output schema, and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description is mostly sufficient for a list operation. It misses pagination/limits, date-format details, and an accurate mapping of actual filter parameters, but the output schema covers return-value details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by naming NF-e/NFC-e/NFS-e and emitted/received types, but it does not clarify DtInicio/DtFim date format or correct the unsupported 'status' filter claim.

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?

The first sentence uses a specific verb and resource ('Lista NF-e/NFC-e/NFS-e') with a date-range scope, making the core purpose clear. However, the second sentence advertises filters for chave, número, and status that do not exist in the input schema, which detracts from precision.

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?

The date-range and emitted/received framing implies this is for broad invoice listing, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer it over sibling consult/emission tools or lists exclusions. There is implied usage context, not explicit guidance.

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

All fiscal toolsInspect
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.

Resources