SEFAZ AC: Certidão Negativa de Débitos, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpf | No | ||
| cnpj | 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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds behavioral traits such as 'sem credenciais da plataforma', payment via prepaid credit, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about authentication and cost.
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 four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and efficiently conveys hosting, payment, and legal notes without excessive verbosity. It maintains a clear structure.
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 has no output schema and the description does not mention return values, error handling, or the required parameter relationship (CPF vs CNPJ). Despite annotations, the description leaves critical details unaddressed for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters at all. While 'cpf' and 'cnpj' are recognizable Brazilian identifiers, the description does not clarify that at least one is needed or what happens if both are provided, leaving ambiguity for a 0-required-params schema.
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 'SEFAZ AC: Certidão Negativa de Débitos, consulta em fonte oficial', identifying the specific resource and operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are unrelated (authenticate, marketplace, etc.), and the verb 'consultar' reinforces its query nature.
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 usage context: hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid via prepaid credits, and accesses non-confidential official data. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.
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.