Gera o XML TISS 4.03.00 de um lote em JSON, com hash do epílogo. Consulte tiss://schemas/lote para o esquema estrutural. Quando usar: depois de validar o lote em JSON sem erros. Quando não usar: para corrigir achados; use tiss_apply_fixes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lote | Yes | Schema estrutural disponível em tiss://schemas/lote. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| xml | Yes | ||
| hash | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden; it names the hash computation as a side effect and implies the output is a serialized XML artifact. It does not describe whether the build is deterministic, what happens with malformed input, or error behavior, which would round this out for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Three compact clauses: what it produces, where to find the schema, and the use/exclusion rules. Front-loaded with the core action; zero wasted sentences, and the exclusion rule comes last where it belongs.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the structural definition of the input is delegated to a named resource. For a single-parameter transformation tool, the description plus schema plus resource pointer covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'lote' parameter is a free-form object whose schema explicitly points to tiss://schemas/lote. The description repeats that same pointer ('Consulte tiss://schemas/lote') rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema and the delegated resource do the semantic work.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Gera o XML TISS 4.03.00 de um lote em JSON, com hash do epílogo' — naming the exact version and the output characteristic (epilogue hash). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like tiss_validate (checks) and tiss_apply_fixes (corrects).
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use ('depois de validar o lote em JSON sem erros') and when-not-to-use ('para corrigir achados; use tiss_apply_fixes'), naming the alternative tool and the condition that routes to it. This establishes a precise pipeline position between validation and fix application.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.