Receita Federal: Cafir, consulta em fonte oficial. Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago. Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros (a mesma disponível ao cidadão), não é dado sigiloso. O cliente é o controlador dos dados e responde pela finalidade legítima (LGPD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cib | Yes |
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. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: billing model, lack of platform credentials, official-source data classification, non-confidential nature, and LGPD responsibility. 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 concise at three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The billing and LGPD details add useful context, though the legal sentence is somewhat dense. Overall, it is well-structured without significant waste.
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 with one parameter and no output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description does not explain the required 'cib' parameter or what the response contains, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent attempting first-time 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 input schema has one required parameter, 'cib', with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description never mentions 'cib', its meaning, format, or expected values, leaving the agent without enough information to construct a valid query.
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 performs a consultation ('consulta') of CAFIR data from the official Receita Federal source. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from the generic sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and show_version.
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 provides clear operational context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when this tool is appropriate.
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.