Consulta os dados de uma NF-e pela chave de acesso (44 dígitos) via emissor: remetente e destinatário (já resolvidos no cadastro), valor da carga, pesos, volumes e produto predominante. É o passo antes de criar o CT-e. A consulta conta na franquia de consultas de NF-e do plano do emissor.
Bulk support: accepts empresa_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chave | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| empresa_id | No | ||
| empresa_ids | 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?
Annotations already mark the operation read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by warning that the query counts against the NF-e query quota and by disclosing bulk execution via empresa_ids. No contradiction with annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the operation, lists returned data, gives usage context, notes quota impact, and mentions bulk support in a few sentences. No filler or 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?
For a read-only lookup with annotations, the description covers purpose, key input, returned fields, prerequisite context, quota, and bulk behavior. The main gap is incomplete parameter semantics for account and empresa_id, but overall it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.
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 description explains the key chave parameter (44-digit access key) and clarifies that empresa_ids enables batched execution, which the schema does not convey. However, account and empresa_id are left unexplained, and with 0% schema description coverage the description should compensate more fully.
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 consults NF-e data by 44-digit access key and enumerates the returned fields (sender, recipient, load value, weights, volumes, predominant product). It also positions the tool as the step before CT-e creation, distinguishing it from CT-e-related siblings.
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?
The phrase 'É o passo antes de criar o CT-e' gives clear contextual guidance on when to use this lookup. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.
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.