SEFAZ MS: 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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds important behavior: it is a paid query, requires no platform credentials, provides the same data available to citizens, and clarifies the LGPD privacy responsibility. These extra details significantly expand the agent's understanding.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps additional sentences relevant, such as payment and LGPD terms. A few phrases could be tightened, but overall every sentence contributes meaningful context.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the key contextual dimensions: official source, credential requirements, payment model, data sensitivity, and legal responsibility. It does not describe the response format, but that is not critical for a simple NFC-e lookup.
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 only parameter 'nfce' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never specifies the expected format or meaning (e.g., whether it is the 44-digit access key). The acronym in the tool name helps, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 opens with 'SEFAZ MS: NFC-e, consulta em fonte oficial,' using the specific verb 'consulta' and the exact resource 'NFC-e' from the official SEFAZ source. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the listed siblings (authenticate, marketplace, etc.), which are platform-level utilities.
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 practical context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and is paid via prepaid credit. This sets expectations for when to call the tool. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, hence not a full 5.
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.