Receita Federal: Simples (DASN SIMEI), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cnpj | 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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral details: no platform credentials required, prepaid per-query cost, data is not confidential, and the client is LGPD data controller. This is meaningful operational and legal context that annotations alone do not 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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It covers cost, authentication, and legal responsibilities in a compact way, though there is slight redundancy between 'fonte oficial' and 'fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros'.
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 simple read-only one-parameter lookup with good annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential contextual factors: official source, non-confidentiality, cost model, and data-responsibility aspects. It does not detail the response format, but that is less critical for this tool.
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 only parameter 'cnpj' has no schema description, and the description itself does not explain its format, expected value, or examples. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory in context, but the description provides no additional semantic value beyond the schema's variable name.
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 a specific action ('consulta') on a specific resource ('Simples (DASN SIMEI)') from an official source ('Receita Federal'). It distinguishes itself from the unrelated sibling tools and makes the tool's function immediately obvious.
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 gives useful context: it is an official-source consultation, hosted by the platform, requiring no platform credentials, and paid per query. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools.
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.