SEFAZ DF: ISS, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ie | No | ||
| 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?
The annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by disclosing prepaid cost, lack of platform credentials, official-source status, absence of confidential data, and LGPD/controller responsibility. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 main purpose is front-loaded, and the supporting platform/cost/privacy details are stated compactly. The text could be better structured or trimmed slightly, but every part contributes meaningful information.
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 description adequately explains the tool's domain, cost, and legal status for selection purposes. However, because it does not describe how to use the input identifiers or what the consultation returns, and no output schema is present, the description is not sufficient for fully reliable invocation.
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%, and the description does not mention the parameters ie, cpf, or cnpj at all. It gives no guidance on whether any of them is required, which one to use, accepted formats, or whether multiple identifiers can be combined, so the agent cannot safely determine how to invoke the tool.
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 says 'SEFAZ DF: ISS, consulta em fonte oficial', giving a clear action and resource: it is an ISS consultation in the official SEFAZ DF source. It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling tools, but it does not describe exactly what kind of result or coverage the consultation returns.
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 useful operational context such as being hosted by the platform, requiring no platform credentials, and being paid by prepaid credits. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or name any sibling tools/exclusions, so usage guidance is still mostly implicit.
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.