SEFAZ MG: Consulta Parcelamento, 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?
Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses cost implications (pay per query), absence of platform credentials, data sensitivity (non-confidential), and LGPD compliance responsibilities. This provides a clear behavioral picture.
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 verbose and repetitive, containing redundant legal disclaimers (e.g., mentioning non-confidential data twice). While it conveys the core purpose, it could be streamlined to a more concise format without losing essential 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 lacks critical usage details: it does not specify whether cpf or cnpj is required, the allowed combination, or any input format validation. It also fails to describe the expected output or error responses. Given the simple schema, this incompleteness hinders practical use.
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 lists cpf and cnpj but provides no descriptions. The description does not explain these parameters, their significance, or whether at least one is required. It relies entirely on implicit knowledge of Brazilian tax IDs, which is insufficient for a robust API description.
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: consulting installment (parcelamento) data from SEFAZ MG, a specific official Brazilian source. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) by its precise resource and function.
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 usage context: it is a paid query (prepaid credits), does not require platform credentials, and accesses non-confidential official data. It implies when to use it (for checking installment status) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, which are unrelated in this case.
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.