SEFAZ AM: NFC-e Completa, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| nfce | 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 read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the tool is platform-hosted, uses prepaid credits, pulls from official Brazilian sources, and imposes LGPD responsibilities—information that informs the agent about side effects and compliance.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose. While it contains legal boilerplate, the length is still reasonable and no extra fluff is present.
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 single-parameter tool, the description fails to explain the parameter or expected input, and omits what 'Completa' means or what the response contains. Annotations help with safety but not with usability.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate by explaining the 'nfce' parameter. A critical omission—there is no hint about expected format (e.g., 44-digit key) or any input constraints, making correct invocation guesswork.
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 indicates a query operation ('consulta') for NFC-e data from SEFAZ AM, naming a specific resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, as none of the siblings perform similar functions, and the phrase 'Completa' is left undefined.
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 implies usage for consulting NFC-e documents and mentions pay-per-query, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The legal/payment disclaimers dominate over practical usage guidance.
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.