SEFAZ GO: 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?
Adds valuable context beyond the read-only annotations by disclosing payment per query ('pague por consulta'), lack of platform credentials needed ('sem credenciais da plataforma'), non-confidentiality of data ('não é dado sigiloso'), and LGPD compliance obligations. These details inform the agent about cost, authentication, and legal constraints.
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 action ('SEFAZ GO: NFC-e... consulta'), followed by brief practical and legal caveats in three sentences. It is not overly verbose, though the legal disclaimers add a bit of length.
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 tool with one string parameter and no output schema, the description covers payment, authentication, and data sensitivity aspects. However, it omits details about expected input format (e.g., NFC-e access key vs. barcode) and what the response contains, leaving some gaps that are partially acceptable given the simplicity.
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 schema has a single 'nfce' string parameter with no description (0% coverage), and the tool description never explains what format or value this parameter expects. The only hint is the general mention of 'NFC-e' in the description, leaving the agent unsure whether to pass an access key, protocol number, or something else.
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 'consulta em fonte oficial' (query from an official source) for 'NFC-e' from 'SEFAZ GO', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace' by focusing on a concrete data query operation.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., needing to authenticate first), or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, despite noting its paid nature and LGPD responsibilities.
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.