SEFAZ MA: 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 cover safety characteristics such as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: paid per query, no credential requirement, same public data available to citizens, and LGPD-related data responsibilities. 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 description is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes some dense clauses about hosting, prepaid credits, and LGPD, but each adds context and does not waste 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects enough: purpose, official source, payment mechanism, credential needs, and public data scope. It could still be stronger by describing the return value or invalid-input behavior, but the low complexity keeps the gap minor.
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 has no description coverage, and the description does not explain the expected format or meaning of the `nfce` parameter. It only restates the domain concept without clarifying whether it is a numeric key, full access key, or another identifier.
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 identifies the tool as a query operation for NFC-e data from the official SEFAZ-MA source. It distinguishes the tool from the generic sibling tools by naming the specific resource and source.
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 clear context for use: it is an official-source consultation tool, hosted by the platform, requiring prepaid credits and no platform credentials. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it compared to alternatives, but that is less critical given the unrelated sibling tools.
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.