ATO FISCAL REAL: transmite um ou mais CT-e à SEFAZ (por id). Opera sobre documentos já criados/em digitação. Exige allow_writes habilitado na conexão.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| empresa_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the note 'ATO FISCAL REAL' and the requirement of allow_writes, which goes beyond the annotations that only indicate readOnlyHint=false. It gives context about the real-world impact and connection prerequisites, but does not detail failure modes or rate limits.
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?
The description is concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the critical 'ATO FISCAL REAL' label. Every word adds value without redundancy.
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?
The tool performs a real fiscal action, and while the description covers the main function and a key prerequisite, it lacks details about expected outcomes, return values, or error handling. With no output schema, it could benefit from more context on post-transmission behavior.
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?
The schema has 3 parameters with 0% coverage in the description. The description only mentions 'by id' implying the ids array, but does not explain the account or empresa_id parameters. With no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description clearly states the tool transmits one or more CT-e to SEFAZ by id, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cancelar, averbar, etc., by specifying the action and the prerequisite that documents must already exist.
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?
It states it operates on already created/drafted documents, giving a clear when-to-use condition, and mentions the require of enable write permission. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the sibling context makes the intended usage clear.
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.
The server mixes two distinct domains (HiveCloud fiscal documents and mcp.ai platform controls) with several similarly-named tools (hivecloud_list_ctes vs hivecloud_get_cte vs hivecloud_cte_xml; hivecloud_list_mdfes vs hivecloud_get_mdfe). The generic 'authenticate', 'connect', and 'toolkit_info' overlap in connection/account status purposes, creating ambiguity about which to call for setup.
Tools mostly follow a 'hivecloud_<domain>_<action>' pattern (e.g., hivecloud_cte_emitir, hivecloud_cte_cancelar), but there are exceptions like 'hivecloud_avaliar' (short verb without domain), 'get_cte' vs 'list_ctes' (tense/plural inconsistency), and generic tools 'authenticate', 'connect', 'report_bug' that don't follow the pattern. Mixed Portuguese/English verbs further reduce consistency.
With 33 tools, this is on the heavy side. The domain spans CT-e, MDF-e, NF-e, DC-e, plus platform management (marketplace, toolkit, bug reporting, versioning) — it bundles too many concerns into one server. Several tools (report_bug, show_version, marketplace) feel unrelated to HiveCloud fiscal document handling, making the count feel bloated.
For the CT-e and MDF-e lifecycle, the surface is quite complete: create from NF-e, emit, cancel, edit (carta de correção), delete drafts, print DACTE/DAMDFE, export XML, list/get, and even a travel report. DC-e and NF-e are lighter (only list/query), and missing tools like 'create_mdfe' (no draft creation for MDF-e) or 'update_mdfe' (only cancel/end) are notable gaps. However, core workflows are well covered.