SEFAZ GO: 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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: platform hosting, prepaid per-query costs, lack of platform credentials, official-source nature, and LGPD data-controller responsibilities. It does not cover error/return behavior, but the safety profile is already well handled by 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 description is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the tool's name and purpose. It includes some repetition ('fonte oficial' appears twice) and legal/LGPD boilerplate, but it remains readable and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 simple read-only query tool with good annotations, the description covers purpose, source, auth, cost, and data governance. However, with no output schema and no parameter guidance, the description leaves some gaps about expected inputs and the shape of the response, making it only minimally 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the cpf or cnpj parameters at all. It fails to state whether one or both are required, mutually exclusive, or how they should be formatted. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level guidance.
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's function: 'SEFAZ GO: Certidão Negativa de Débitos, consulta em fonte oficial' — a specific query operation for a Brazilian official debt certificate. This strongly distinguishes it from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.).
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 usage context: it queries official Brazilian sources, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the absence of explicit exclusions is not a major issue.
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.