Status do serviço da SEFAZ para a empresa (se o servidor da Fazenda está em operação).
Bulk support: accepts empresa_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds the bulk support feature (accepting 'empresa_ids') and restates the operational purpose. It does not describe return format or edge cases, but adds meaningful context about batched execution beyond what annotations provide.
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 highly concise: two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds the bulk support detail. Every word contributes value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 is simple, and annotations cover safety. The description explains the purpose and bulk capability, but does not document the parameters (account, empresa_id) or the expected output format, especially given there is no output schema. For a read-only status check, the description is adequate but incomplete—missing parameter explanations and response details.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'empresa_ids' for bulk execution. It does not explain the 'account' or 'empresa_id' parameters, leaving most of the schema meaning unexplained. The description adds minimal value over the bare schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 that this tool checks the status of the SEFAZ service for a company (whether the Treasury server is in operation). It uses a specific verb ('status') and resource ('SEFAZ service'), and is completely distinct from sibling tools that perform actions like emit, cancel, or list documents.
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 description implies usage for checking service status but does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., before issuing a document) or when not to use it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, though no sibling tool serves the same purpose. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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.