SEFAZ CE: 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it's not confidential data, LGPD responsibilities fall on the client, and each query consumes prepaid credit. This goes beyond the baseline by disclosing cost and compliance aspects, though it doesn't cover error/return behavior.
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 packs purpose, hosting, billing, and legal notes into three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the legal/confidentiality sentence feels tacked on. Overall, no wasted words.
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 two-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers operational context (cost, credentials) and legal framing. However, it omits parameter semantics and any success/failure behavior, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent. It's acceptable but not comprehensive.
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% for the two parameters (cpf, cnpj), and the description provides no elaboration. An agent is left without any information about whether one or both are required, their formats, or usage. This is a critical gap that the description does not compensate for.
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 SEFAZ CE for a Negative Debt Certificate from an official source. It uses a specific verb ('consulta') and resource ('Certidão Negativa de Débitos'), and the jurisdiction (Ceará) is explicit. This differentiates it from generic sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect'.
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 mentions platform hosting, prepaid credit, and lack of platform credentials, which implies usage conditions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The guidance is indirect, so it earns a baseline 'implied' score.
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.