SEFAZ MG: NFC-e Resumida, 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?
The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as the official source, no platform credentials, pay-per-consultation, non-confidential data, and LGPD responsibility. This provides context about the tool's operation and 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 repetitive, stating 'consulta em fonte oficial' and later 'Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros' which is redundant. It also repeats 'sem credenciais' and 'pague por consulta' in slightly different forms, affecting conciseness.
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 provides some context about the official source and payment, but fails to explain the input parameter or the expected output. With no output schema, agents are left without a clear understanding of what the tool returns.
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 sole parameter 'nfce' is described only as a string with no explanation in the schema or description. Its meaning is not elaborated, leaving agents uncertain about what value to provide.
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 purpose: 'SEFAZ MG: NFC-e Resumida, consulta em fonte oficial' indicating a consultation for NFC-e summary from an official source. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect.
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 for consulting NFC-e summaries but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions payment and prepaid credits, which gives some usage context, but lacks a clear 'use when' statement.
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.