SEFAZ CE: NFC-e, 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 mark the operation as read-only and idempotent, so the description adds useful behavioral context: prepaid per-query cost, no credential requirement, public data availability, and LGPD responsibility. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Four sentences convey purpose, source, cost, credentials, data sensitivity, and legal responsibility without padding. Each sentence contributes new context, though it is slightly wordier than a minimal high-value description.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema consultation tool, the description covers official provenance, pricing, credentials, information availability, and legal responsibility. It could be improved by clarifying the expected response shape or the exact input key format, but overall it is reasonably 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 input schema exposes a single string 'nfce' with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'NFC-e' as the resource, but it does not explain the expected identifier format (e.g., access key length or encoding), which the agent needs to interact reliably.
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 performs a consultation of NFC-e documents against the official SEFAZ CE source ('SEFAZ CE: NFC-e, consulta em fonte oficial'). It also distinguishes itself from the unrelated platform sibling tools by focusing on official Brazilian data retrieval.
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 context: use it when you need official NFC-e data, and mentions important conditions like prepaid credit and no platform credentials. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it, nor does it name or compare against any alternative lookup tool.
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.