Receita Federal: NIRF, 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 | No | ||
| nirf | 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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description supplements this with crucial operational details: it's hosted on the platform, requires pre-paid credit, queries official public data (not confidential), and clarifies LGPD responsibility. This goes beyond the basic annotation profile.
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 and informative within three sentences, covering purpose, sourcing, and key operational details without unnecessary verbosity.
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 annotated as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds payment and legal contextUTES, but fails to explain the two parameters (cib, nirf) or their formats, and provides no output format details. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but could be more complete.
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 two parameters (cib, nirf) with zero description coverage and no required fields. The description does not explain what these parameters mean or how to use them, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide.
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's purpose: 'consultar' (query) NIRF data from official Federal Revenue sources. It explicitly names the resource (NIRF) and the action, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (which are generic platform tools like authenticate, connect, etc.) by being a domain-specific data query.
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 notes that it uses pre-paid credits and doesn't require platform credentials, which implies usage prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives, though no similar sibling tools exist. It gives clear context about payment and legal responsibility, which is useful for the agent to conditionally call it.
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.