SEFAZ MT: Certidão Negativa de Débitos, 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond these: it clarifies that no platform credentials are needed, the query is paid via prepaid credits, and it includes data governance notes (LGPD, data controller responsibilities). It does not contradict annotations, so it earns credit for supplementary transparency.
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 a single dense paragraph that mixes operational details, legal disclaimers (LGPD), and payment info. While it's not overly verbose, the legal content is tangential and distracts from the core function. It lacks structured presentation but remains reasonably concise.
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 tool has two parameters (cpf/cnpj) with no schema descriptions, and the description fails to explain their usage or any return value. It also omits details about required input (likely at least one of CPF/CNPJ) and output format. With no output schema, the description should cover these, but it does not, making the tool under-specified for correct invocation.
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 two optional string parameters (cpf, cnpj) with 0% schema description coverage. The description provides no explanation of these parameters, their formats, or whether at least one is required. The agent has no guidance on how to populate them correctly, which is a critical gap for a query tool.
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: 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos, consulta em fonte oficial' (query negative debt certificate from an official source). It explicitly names the resource (SEFAZ MT) and the action (consultar), making it easy to distinguish from generic siblings 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 does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternative tools. It mentions operational constraints (prepaid credit, platform hosting) but lacks direction on when to select this tool over others, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
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.