SEFAZ MT: 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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by explaining the authentication model (no platform credentials) and the payment per consultation, as well as clarifying that data is non-confidential and subject to LGPD control. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by necessary operational details. No wasted words; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's context and constraints.
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?
Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify the expected input and return value. It mentions consultation of official data but omits the parameter format and any output description. It also lacks guidance on response structure or error handling, making the tool incomplete for agent use without additional inference.
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 one required string parameter 'nfce' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what format or value should be passed (e.g., NFC-e access key or number). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without essential invocation details.
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 consultation for NFC-e from SEFAZ MT, an official source. The verb 'consultar' and resource 'NFC-e' are explicit, and the context 'fonte oficial' distinguishes it from unrelated 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 provides usage context: no platform credentials needed, prepaid credit required, and it accesses public official data. It implies when to use (for NFC-e queries) but lacks explicit instructions on prerequisites or exclusions. Since sibling tools are unrelated, this is a clear usage scope, though not exhaustive.
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.