Receita Federal: NFE, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| nfe | Yes | ||
| pkcs12_cert | No | ||
| pkcs12_pass | 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context: no platform credentials needed, prepaid credit per query, data is not confidential, and client is data controller under LGPD. This goes beyond 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 a single paragraph, reasonably concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary legal and operational context without excessive verbosity. Slightly dense but acceptable.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain more about parameters and expected output. It covers operational context (credits, LGPD) but leaves parameter semantics and return format unexplained, making it incomplete for effective use.
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 does not explain any of the three parameters (nfe, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass). The description mentions 'consulta' but doesn't clarify what 'nfe' expects (e.g., access key format) or the purpose of the certificate parameters. 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 queries NFE (Nota Fiscal Eletrônica) data from official Brazilian sources, distinguishing it from generic tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though siblings are unrelated (auth, marketplace, etc.), so it's clear enough.
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 explains the context (official source, prepaid credits, LGPD compliance) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage for querying NFE data but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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.